維摩經義疏 3.8

3.8

"The Buddha told Aniruddha: 'Go to Vimalakīrti to inquire about his illness.'" This is the seventh time, commanding Aniruddha. According to the Tripiṭaka, the next should have been Upāli; but the previous two already elucidated the exposition of Dharma, and now divine penetrations are distinguished, appearing alternately. As for the text, there are two parts: first the command, next the declining. "Aniruddha" is translated here as "According with One's Wishes," also called "Absence of Greed," and also named "Indestructible"—these are just one meaning. Eighty thousand kalpas ago, he once made offerings to a pratyekabuddha, and the good roots he attained have not been destroyed down to the present; hence he is named "Indestructible." His karmic reward accords with his heart's desire, so he is "According with One's Wishes." King Siṃhahanu had four sons, each having two children. The eldest son was named Śuddhodana and had two sons: the elder named Siddhārtha and the younger named Nanda. King Śuklodana had two sons: the elder named Devadatta and the younger named Ānanda. King Droṇodana had two sons: the elder named Aniruddha and the younger named Mahānāma. King Amṛtodana had two sons: the elder named Bhadrika and the next named Tiṣya. King Siṃhahanu had a daughter named Amṛtā who had only one son, named Śiśudhara. Thus Aniruddha was the Buddha's paternal cousin, foremost in the divine eye. The reason he obtained the divine eye was that on one occasion, while listening to the Dharma beside the Buddha, he fell asleep. The Buddha rebuked him: "Fie! How can you be like a snail or mussel?" Aniruddha felt ashamed and did not sleep for many days, whereupon he lost his eyesight. Asking Jīvaka to treat it, Jīvaka said: "Sleep is food for the eyes. Going long without sleep, they starve to death and can no longer be healed." Because of this, Aniruddha cultivated and attained the divine eye. "Aniruddha addressed the Buddha: 'World-Honoured One, I am not competent to go there to inquire about his illness.'" This is the second part, declining as not competent. In the text there are three parts: the statement, the explanation, and the conclusion. This is the first, the statement. "'Why is this? I recall that in the past I was walking in a certain place. At that time a Brahmā king named Śubhavyūha, together with ten thousand Brahmās, emitting pure radiance, came to where I was, bowed his head in homage, and asked me: "How far does Aniruddha's divine eye see?" I then answered: "Virtuous one, I see this trisāhasramahāsāhasra world system of Śākyamuni Buddha just like looking at an āmalaka fruit in my palm."'" This is the second part, explaining the incompetence. The text opens into four distinct points: first, clarifying the reason for being rebuked; second, recounting the purpose of the ability to rebuke; third, Aniruddha being bested; fourth, the Brahmā king generating the aspiration. This is the first text. Question: The *Mahāprajñāpāramitōpadeśa* says, "A great arhat sees only two thousand worlds." Why does he now say three thousand? Answer: Relying on ordinary power, he sees two thousand; by applying effort, he sees three thousand. Furthermore, the power of the divine eye sees only two thousand, while the power of wisdom based on vows sees three thousand. As for the āmalaka fruit, its shape resembles an areca nut; eating it expels wind, and in cold times one holds this fruit in the hand, so it is used as an analogy. "'At that time Vimalakīrti came and said to me: "Well now, Aniruddha! Is the divine eye of conditioned marks, or is it devoid of conditioned marks? If it is of conditioned marks, then it is equal to the five superknowledges of the non-Buddhists; if it is devoid of conditioned marks, then it is unconditioned and there should be no seeing."'" This is the second part, recounting the purpose of the ability to rebuke. First he sets forth both possibilities, and next he brings together the two dilemmas. "Of conditioned marks" and "devoid of conditioned marks" are the twofold determination. Seeing by constructing the marks of square and round shapes of form is called "of conditioned marks"; not constructing the marks of square and round shapes of form is called "devoid of conditioned marks." Another explanation is: the karmic-reward body of the three realms, where the sensory faculties broadly arise from defilements and karma, is called conditioned and having conditioned marks. The dharmakāya is distinct from this, termed unconditioned and devoid of conditioned marks. Bringing together the two dilemmas: if seeing is by constructing square and round marks, then it is shared with non-Buddhists, because non-Buddhists also see by constructing square and round marks. If seeing is without constructing square and round marks, then lacking square and round, it is a non-existent phenomenon and there should be no seeing. "'World-Honoured One, I was silent at that time.'" This is the third part, Aniruddha being bested. If he wanted to say it had marks, it was identical with non-Buddhists; if he wanted to say it was devoid of marks, it was then unconditioned. Because he did not understand how to synthesize them, he failed to reply at that time and was bested by the two dilemmas. "'Hearing his words, those Brahmās attained what they had never had before, and they made homage to him and asked: "Who in the world has the true divine eye?"'" This is the fourth part, the audience obtaining benefit. There are also three phrases: first the question, next the answer, and third the generation of the aspiration. This is the first, the question. Aniruddha was foremost in the divine eye, and since he had been bested by Jingming, who else outside of this possessed the true divine eye? "'Vimalakīrti said: "There is the Buddha, the World-Honoured One, who has the true divine eye, constantly in samādhi, seeing all Buddha lands completely, not by means of dual marks."'" This is the second, Jingming's answer. First he answers generally, saying there is; next he identifies the person who has the true divine eye, who is the Buddha, the World-Honoured One. Below, he explains the true divine eye through three gates: first, seeing while constantly in concentration, distinct from the Hīnayāna seeing outside of concentration—this reveals that stillness and distraction are non-dual. Next, "seeing all Buddha lands completely" clarifies that what the Hīnayāna sees is near, while what the Buddhas see is far—these two are distinct. "Not by means of dual marks": the subject and object are distinct yet there is no eye or form, meaning existence does not obstruct non-existence; although devoid of eye and form, subject and object are not lost, meaning non-existence does not obstruct existence. Because existence does not obstruct non-existence, it is not the same as non-Buddhists; because non-existence does not obstruct existence, it is not the same as the unconditioned. This directly answers the two dilemmas above. Furthermore, regarding the seeing of the eye, he clarifies non-dual seeing. Distinct yet without seeing, and although devoid of seeing, there is nothing it does not see; this is called non-dual. Master Jīva said, "Not constructing the two marks of subtle and coarse is called non-dual." "'Thereupon Brahmā King Śubhavyūha and his retinue of five hundred Brahmā gods all generated the aspiration for anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and having bowed to Vimalakīrti's feet, suddenly vanished.'" This is the third, generating the aspiration. The Brahmā king, having heard that non-Buddhists and the two vehicles are not genuine, and that the one with the true divine eye is only the Buddha, the World-Honoured One, therefore abandoned both the noble and the mundane to generate the Buddha-mind. "'Therefore, I am not competent to go there to inquire about his illness.'" This is the third, concluding the incompetence.