維摩經義疏 3.9

3.9

"The Buddha said to Upāli: 'Go to Vimalakīrti to inquire about his illness.'" This is the eighth [commission], commanding Upāli. The text consists of two parts: first, the command; next, the refusal as incompetent. Upāli was a man of low caste in Rājagṛha, translated as "Superior Head" (Śreṣṭha), and was the barber of the Śākya princes. Later, when the Śākya clan went to the Buddha to renounce the household life, Upāli followed them. As they approached the Buddha's place, the Śākyas took off their precious clothes and ornaments and gave away the elephants they were riding, handing them all to him. Upāli reflected: "Even these noble and wealthy Śākyas abandon such things to leave home. Why should I remain?" He placed the goods he had received beneath a tree, tied the elephant to the tree, and said: "Whoever would take them, I give them all away!" He then proceeded to the Buddha's place. The Śākyas asked him why he had come, and Upāli fully explained his reasons. The Śākyas rejoiced greatly and immediately requested the Buddha to condescend to deliver him first: "This man was formerly our attendant. If he leaves home later, we might easily look down upon him. If the Buddha condescends to deliver him first, we shall pay him respectful service." The Buddha thereupon delivered him first, and the Śākya sons all bowed to him together. At that moment the great earth shook, and a voice in the sky praised him, saying: "The mountain of the Śākya youths' arrogance has collapsed." After Upāli left home, he had a superior understanding of the Vinaya, and because he had made vows to uphold the precepts lifetime after lifetime, he is now foremost among those who uphold the Vinaya.

"Upāli 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 incompetent. The text has three sections: the statement, the explanation, and the conclusion. This is the first, the statement.

"'Why is this? I remember that in the past, two monks violated the precepts and felt ashamed of their conduct, not daring to ask the Buddha. They came and asked me, saying: "O Upāli! We have violated the precepts and are truly ashamed; we dare not ask the Buddha. We pray you will resolve our doubts and remorse so that we may be freed from this fault." I then explained [the matter] to them in accordance with the Dharma.'" This is the second part, explaining his incompetence. In the text there are three sections: first, explaining the reason for being reproved; second, recounting the purpose of the reproof; third, explaining the benefit gained by the assembly at that time. Within the text there are two parts: first, explaining the monks' transgression of the precepts; second, clarifying Upāli's explanation according to the Dharma. As for violating the precepts: one monk appeared to violate the precept against unchastity, and the next monk appeared to violate the precept against taking life, the details of which appear in other sūtras. Two monks were cultivating the Path in a forest. One monk was exhausted, lay on his back, and fell fast asleep. Suddenly a woman placed her female organ upon this monk, and the monk discharged impure fluid. Only when he awoke did he realize this, and he recounted it to his companion. That [other] monk said: "We can watch for this woman's return." When the woman suddenly returned, the monk pursued her; terrified, the woman ran, fell into a pit, and died. This appeared to be the transgression of killing; hence it is said that they violated the precepts. "Truly ashamed": a transgressor fears suffering in future lives on the one hand, and fears the deeds committed in the present on the other. "Not daring to ask the Buddha": because the Buddha is deeply revered and their shame was profound, they did not dare to ask him. Furthermore, the Buddha clearly discerns the marks of dharmas; if he were to decisively judge their offenses, they would be forever expelled from the pure community; therefore they did not dare to ask the Buddha. Since Upāli was foremost in upholding the Vinaya, they accordingly inquired into their doubts with him. "I then explained to them in accordance with the Dharma": this is the second part, where Upāli determined the severity of the offenses according to the categories of the Vinaya (skandha/nikāya), yet was not able to explain in detail the method of transcending them.

"'At that time, Vimalakīrti came and said to me: "O Upāli! Do not further aggravate the offenses of these two monks!"'" This is the second part, clarifying the purpose of the reproof. The text has two parts: first, clarifying Upāli's mistaken teaching; second, discerning Jingming's skillful remedying. The monks saw a mind and a body, which is the first attachment; they further claimed that there were offenses that could arise, giving rise to doubts and remorse while wishing to extinguish them, which is the second attachment; and Upāli, by fixing the characteristics of their offenses, caused their attachment to become all the deeper, which in turn increased their defilement of transgression, which is the third attachment. Here [Vimalakīrti] first admonishes him, saying: "Do not further aggravate the offenses of these two monks."

"'You should directly eliminate them and not disturb their minds.'" This is the second part, clarifying Jingming's skillful remedy. The text has three sections: statement, explanation, and conclusion. This is the first, the statement. Upāli had two faults: first, not explaining the true characteristic, which was circuitous with respect to the principle; second, not responding to their Mahāyāna capacity, which was crooked with respect to conditions. Now, addressing these two matters, two dharmas are conversely clarified: first, explaining the true characteristic accords with the principle and the real, which is called "directly eliminating"; second, responding to their Mahāyāna capacity, and therefore not perturbing their minds.

"'Why is this? The nature of their offenses is not within, not without, nor in between.'" This is the second part, explaining the skillful remedy. There are four sections: first, clarifying the emptiness of offenses; next, discerning the emptiness of the mind; third, presenting analogies; fourth, extensive explanation. The arising of offenses exists due to causes and conditions; if one seeks their true nature, it is not in these three places. If it is not in these three places, one perceives that offenses are empty and thus awakens to the principle and the real; awakening to the principle and the real generates correct contemplation; once correct contemplation is generated, afflictions are extinguished. When even afflictions are extinguished, how could offenses remain? "Not within" means not in one's own mind; if it were in one's mind, it would not depend on the external. "Not without" means not in another's body; if it were in another, it would not arise on account of oneself. "Nor in between" means that seeking offenses in the conjunction of self and other cannot be achieved. Furthermore, consciousness is internal, sense-objects are external, and the sense-faculties are in between, yet offenses are not in these three places. Furthermore, the cause of an offense is internal, the condition for an offense is external, and the conjunction of internal and external is in between.

"'Just as the Buddha has said: "Because the mind is defiled, sentient beings are defiled; because the mind is pure, sentient beings are pure."'" This is the second section, discerning the emptiness of the mind. Offenses arise from the mind, so the mind is the root of offenses; yet if the mind itself is fundamentally empty, how could offenses ever exist? Therefore he traces back to seek its root. There are four clauses altogether: first, quoting the Buddha's truthful words, "because the mind is defiled, sentient beings are defiled." When the mind has defilement, sentient beings suffer encumbrance; when sentient beings suffer encumbrance, they are defiled, encumbered sentient beings. Just as it is with defilement, so it is with purity.

"'The mind is also not within, not without, nor in between.'" The second clause clarifies the emptiness of the mind. If the mind were within, it should not depend on external objects; if the mind were without, there should be no mind within. Since it is not in these two places, how could it be in between?

"'Just as it is with the mind, so it is with the defilement of offenses.'" The third clause reveals the branches by means of the root. "All dharmas are also thus": since the two phenomena of mind and offenses are empty, the myriad dharmas that swirl forth all arise from the mind. Since they are empty within the mind, all dharmas are likewise so.

"'They do not depart from Suchness.'" The emptiness of mind and offenses refers to the emptiness of internal dharmas; "all dharmas are also thus" refers to the emptiness of external dharmas. The reason why the internal and external are empty is that they do not depart from Suchness; because Suchness is another name for emptiness, the internal and external are also thus. Furthermore, it is not because the internal and external are broken apart and dissected that they become empty; rather, because the internal and external are fundamentally Suchness, they are empty.

"'Just as when the characteristic of Upāli's mind attained liberation, was there any defilement?'" This is the third section, presenting an analogy. There are three clauses: first, the question; second, the answer; third, the analogy. When a śrāvaka first becomes an arhat, he witnesses the ninth path of liberation; at that time there is only a pure mind and no defilement. Wishing to liken it to the minds of sentient beings, he first fixes his words.

"'I said: "No."'" This is the second clause, Upāli's direct reply. It clarifies that at the time of witnessing the fruit, there is only purity and no defilement.

"'Vimalakīrti said: "The characteristic of the minds of all sentient beings is undefiled, just like this."'" The third clause presents the analogy to liken them. The Hīnayāna claims that when an arhat is in contemplation, his mind is undefiled, but because sentient beings have not yet severed delusions, their minds are defiled. Thus he now takes the non-existence [of defilement] in the two vehicles to liken it to the existence [of defilement] in ordinary persons.

"'O Upāli! False discrimination is defilement, non-discrimination is purity; inverted views are defilement, non-inversion is purity; grasping at a self is defilement, not grasping at a self is purity.'" This is the fourth section, the extensive explanation. Although the emptiness of offenses was explained above, the confused might give rise to doubt: if offenses do not exist, why do the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna sūtras and vinayas state that sentient beings produce offenses? Therefore he now explains: because of false discrimination, they see offenses as existing; thus other sūtras explain them as existing. Here, relying on the principle and the real, he says they are non-existent. As for the difference between the three categories of false discrimination, inverted views, and grasping at a self: arbitrary discrimination is called "false discrimination"; considering what is non-existent to be existent and turning one's back on the principle and the real is called "inverted views"; the reason for inverted views is fundamentally grasping at a self. Furthermore, false discrimination refers to the eight false discriminations, as explained in the Bodhisattvabhūmi; inverted views refer to the three inversions; grasping at a self is the root of all false views.

"'Upāli! All dharmas arise and cease without abiding, like an illusion, like lightning. Dharmas do not depend on one another, not abiding for even a single thought-moment.'" Above, it was explained that offenses exist falsely through delusion; now it is discerned that what exists falsely is non-existent, which also explains the meaning of false existence. "Not depending on one another": this does not mean the absence of mutual dependence such as long and short; it merely discerns the impermanence of all dharmas. The preceding thought does not wait for the subsequent thought to arise before it ceases; because all dharmas do not abide, they cease as soon as they arise. What is non-abiding is like an illusion; because it is unreal, it is empty.

"'All dharmas are only false views, like a dream, like a mirage, like the moon in the water, like an image in a mirror, arising from false discrimination.'" Above, it was explained that external dharmas do not abide; here it is discerned that the internal mind holds false views, both clarifying the meaning of emptiness. Because the views are false, what is seen is unreal, and therefore it is empty. The two earlier analogies take their rapid cessation, while these four analogies illustrate false discrimination.

"'He who knows this is called one who upholds the Vinaya.'" Jingming's skillful remedy has three parts: the statement and explanation are already completed, and this is the general concluding praise. To practice in accord with the Vinaya Dharma is called "upholding the Vinaya"; this praises practice. "He who knows this is called one of good understanding." To know the true characteristic of offenses is called "good understanding"; this praises understanding. Some understand the Vinaya but do not practice it; some practice the Vinaya but do not understand it; hence both are praised together. Question: Now that the emptiness of offenses has been clarified, how is this upholding the Vinaya? Answer: The Vinaya is called vinaya, which here means "skillful remedy / regulation" (subduing), meaning that one can subdue the three poisons oneself and can also regulate sentient beings. Causing them to know the emptiness of offenses is the true skillful remedy.

"'Thereupon the two monks said: "Supreme wisdom! This is beyond Upāli's reach; even the foremost in upholding the Vinaya cannot expound it!" I replied: "Except for the Tathāgata, there is no śrāvaka or bodhisattva who can restrain his eloquence of delightful speech. His wisdom and discernment are like this!" At that time, the doubts and remorse of the two monks were immediately eliminated, and they gave rise to the aspiration for anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, making this vow: "May all sentient beings attain such eloquence!"'" This is the third part, clarifying the benefit gained by the assembly at that time. The text contains three clauses: first, the monks' double praise; second, Upāli's double reply; third, the monks' double benefit. In the first, the double praise: "Supreme wisdom!" praises Jingming's internal wisdom; "even the foremost in upholding the Vinaya cannot expound it" praises Jingming's external eloquence. In the second, Upāli's double reply: he first replies concerning the external eloquence; "his wisdom and discernment" then replies concerning the internal wisdom. In the monks' double benefit: "their doubts and remorse were immediately eliminated" means evil was extinguished; "gave rise to the aspiration" explains the arising of good.

"'Therefore I am not competent to go there to inquire about his illness.'" This is the third part, the general conclusion declining as incompetent.