說無垢稱經疏 1.17

1.17

四、敘經不同。不同有二：一教名不同、二品名不同。教名不同者，此經前後雖復七翻：嚴佛調，漢，翻於白馬；支恭明，吳，譯於武康；法護、叔蘭、蜜多三士，東西兩晉各傳本教；羅什翻於秦朝；和上暢於唐。曰：除羅什外，或名維摩詰經、或云無垢稱經、或云說維摩詰經、或云說無垢稱經、或云毘摩羅詰經，唯羅什法師獨云維摩詰所說經，仍云一名不可思議解脫。准依梵本，初首題云阿費摩羅枳里底。阿之言無，摩羅云垢。如云阿摩羅識，此云無垢識。今既加費字，故是稱也，即云無垢稱。枳里底者，說也。梵音多倒，如云衣著飯喫。今云無垢稱邊說也，即此經中無垢稱是所說，順唐音正云說無垢稱經。什公不依漢譯、存其梵音者，意許維摩亦得說經。良以身嬰俗妄、久離僧流，恐傍議而多生，所以許其說經。如《鹿女所說經》，經說鹿女事，非鹿女能說經。若對佛前，佛所印可，乃至天魔外道亦得說經。雖許彼說，仍名佛說經，餘人不得說經。《瑜伽論》云「十二部中，弟子唯得說論議經，理不違佛故；餘十一部皆不許說。改換佛言，師資別故。」若不爾者，師資何異？三藏之中唯得說阿毘達磨，不得說餘二。師資既別，故知淨名、妙德不得說經。亦非彼經上下皆淨名說，何得云維摩詰說？其維摩得云淨名，義即可然，言則不可。單言維摩，但是垢稱，闕少阿羅二字詰者。枳里底，說也。更云所說，重言何用？但是什公出自龜茲，不解中國梵語，不但澆訛不正，亦乃義意未融故也。一名不可思議解脫者，准依梵本，題在卷末。卷末佛言：「此經名為說無垢稱不可思議自在神變解脫法門。」若唯談人，但云阿費摩羅枳里底。若唯談法，脚注云亦名不可思議解脫。舊經佛告有二名，此乃譯經之人別開，非梵本如此。若以如有二故並悉題之，《勝鬘》有十五名、《無量義經》有十七名，並應具載，何故都題不並題也。俱以什公見注之號，遂即經首題之，無本脚注。後人連題麁寫，遂令萬代連唱釋之。理不然也。依此注中，詮不可思議解脫之事，是故名之。品名不同者，經十四品，頭數雖同，名或有異。第一今名序品，什公云佛國品。契經正說維摩詰事。欲明其事，先談由序，何故不名序品乃名佛國？若以寶性問佛，佛說嚴淨佛土乃名佛國，直欲別明佛國之義，不是序述說淨名之由序也。如《法花經．序品》明說無量義等七種成熟事，應名成就品，何故名序品？又諸經皆有序品，此何獨無，又以後准前，後名囑累，何故初無序品？第二今名顯不可思議方便善巧品，什公但名方便品。方便之義理通大小，今顯大故，應言顯不思議，何得但言方便？又大乘中方便通權實，此顯權而不實，下位不知、妙用莫方，云不思議善巧。簡小簡實，不應但名方便品。又梵本有顯不思議善巧，什公何以單名？第三聲聞品，什公名弟子品。菩薩聲聞二俱弟子，聲聞何故獨得弟子之名？以小對大，應名聲聞、不應名弟子，何況梵本無弟子之言。第五今名問疾品，什公名文殊師利問疾品。什公以吉祥稱首，標以為名。今者不唯一人，所以總言問疾。既依梵本，實亦無之。第七今名觀有情品，什公名觀眾生品。卉木無識亦名眾生，有識名情，不通草木。況梵云摩呼繕那，可云眾生；既云薩埵，故言有情。第八今名菩提分品，什公名佛道品。菩提覺義，當來佛果；分是因義，此等眾行成覺之因。又菩提覺義，即是妙慧；分是支義，此是妙慧之支分也。言佛道者，佛是佛果，道是因名，道路之義。取佛之道，義雖可爾。然肇公意，欲以老子之道同佛之道而以為名。菩提覺義，未伽道義，梵音既違、義亦有濫。豈在佛位而無道也？故應正云菩提分品。第九今名不二法門品，什公名入不二法門品。今明不二法門道理，何勞更置「入」言。什公以淨名不言，謂入不二。妙德等有言，應是入二。總彰不二義，故不須「入」言。梵本經無入字。第十今名香臺品，什公云香積品。佛身香體高妙，類於香臺。但言香積，積香所成，而無妙高之義。顯佛土體妙高大故，應名香臺。第十二今名觀如來品，什公云阿閦佛品。彼品，佛問維摩詰：「云何觀於如來？」說觀法身如來等品。後因鶖子請問，方說淨名從阿閦佛國來，不唯明阿閦佛。今唯言阿閦佛，失彼品經宗之意，何但違於梵音。但以方言隔正理虧，義既乖其本宗，名亦如何不謬也。

Fourth, recounting the differences in the sūtra. There are two differences: first, differences in the title of the teaching; second, differences in the chapter titles. Regarding the differences in the title of the teaching: although this sūtra was translated seven times before and after—Yan Fodiao of the Han translated it at Baima; Zhi Qian (Gongming) of the Wu translated it at Wukang; the three masters Dharmarakṣa, Zhu Shulan, and Gitamitra each transmitted the root teaching during the Eastern and Western Jin dynasties; Kumārajīva translated it during the Qin dynasty; and the Preceptor [Xuanzang] expounded it during the Tang—save for Kumārajīva, it was called variously *Weimojie jing*, *Wugoucheng jing*, *Shuo Weimojie jing*, *Shuo Wugoucheng jing*, or *Pimoluojie jing*. Only Dharma Master Kumārajīva alone called it *Weimojie suoshuo jing* (The Sūtra Spoken by Vimalakīrti), and added that another title is *Bukesiyi jietuo* (Inconceivable Liberation). Conforming to the Sanskrit text, the opening title reads *A-fei-mo-luo-qi-li-di* (*Avimalakīrti*). *A* means 'without' (wu), and *mola* means 'defilement' (gou). Just as one says *amala-vijñāna*, here translated as 'immaculate consciousness'. Now, since the syllable *fei* is added, it means 'renown' (*kīrti*), hence 'Immaculate Renown' (*Vimalakīrti*). *Qilidi* means 'spoken' (*nirdeśa*). Sanskrit phrasing is often inverted, like saying 'clothes wear, rice eat'. Here it means 'spoken by Vimalakīrti'; that is, in this sūtra, Vimalakīrti is the speaker. Conforming properly to Tang usage, it should be called *Shuo Wugoucheng jing* (Sūtra Spoken by Vimalakīrti). The reason Master Kumārajīva did not follow the Chinese translation and retained its Sanskrit pronunciation was that he intended to allow that Vimalakīrti could also speak a sūtra. In truth, because he had become entangled in worldly delusion and had long been separated from the saṅgha, he feared that outside criticism would proliferate, and therefore he permitted him to preach a sūtra. Just as in the *Sūtra Spoken by the Deer Maiden*, the sūtra narrates the affairs of the Deer Maiden, but it is not that the Deer Maiden was able to preach a sūtra. If before the Buddha, with the Buddha's seal of approval, even heavenly demons and non-Buddhists may preach a sūtra; although they are permitted to speak, it is still called a sūtra spoken by the Buddha, and other persons may not preach sūtras. The *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra* says: 'Among the twelve divisions, disciples are only permitted to preach the upadeśa (treatise) sūtras, because their principles do not contradict the Buddha; they are not permitted to preach the other eleven divisions. Altering the Buddha's words is not allowed, because teacher and disciple are distinct.' If it were not so, what difference would there be between teacher and disciple? Among the three baskets, they may only expound the Abhidharma, and may not preach the other two. Since teacher and disciple are distinct, one knows that Vimalakīrti (Jingming) and Mañjuśrī (Miaode) could not preach sūtras. Nor is it that the entire sūtra from top to bottom was spoken by Vimalakīrti; how then could it be called 'Spoken by Vimalakīrti'? As for saying that Vimalakīrti means 'Pure Name', in meaning that may be acceptable, but in terms of the words it is not. Saying merely 'Weimo' gives only 'Goucheng' (Defiled Renown), lacking the two syllables *a-luo* (*a-ma*). *Jie* is *kīrti*, 'spoken'. Adding 'suoshuo' (that which is spoken), what is the use of repeating the word? This is simply because Master Kumārajīva came from Kucha and did not understand the Sanskrit of the Central Region [India]; not only was it corrupt and imprecise, but the doctrinal meaning was also unrefined. Regarding 'Another name is Inconceivable Liberation': conforming to the Sanskrit text, this title appears at the end of the scroll. At the end of the scroll, the Buddha says: 'This sūtra is named *The Teaching Method of the Inconceivable, Sovereign, Miraculous Transformation and Liberation Spoken by Vimalakīrti*.' If one speaks only of the person, it is merely *Avimalakīrti*. If one speaks only of the doctrine, an annotation notes: 'It is also named *Inconceivable Liberation*.' In the old sūtra, the Buddha announced two titles; this was an addition made separately by the translator, not how it stood in the Sanskrit text. If all titles should be prefixed because there are two, then since the *Śrīmālādevī-sūtra* has fifteen titles and the *Anantanirdeśa-sūtra* has seventeen titles, all of them ought to be recorded in full; why then are they not all included in the main title? It was entirely because Master Kumārajīva saw the annotated title and immediately placed it at the head of the sūtra, lacking the original footnote. Later scribes copied them consecutively without care, leading countless generations to chant and explain them together. In principle, this is incorrect. Following this note, because it expounds the matter of inconceivable liberation, it is named accordingly. Regarding the differences in the chapter titles: although the number of fourteen chapters is the same, the names differ in some cases. The first is now named 'Prologue Chapter' (Xu pin); Master Kumārajīva called it 'Buddha Land Chapter' (Foguo pin). The sūtra properly speaks of Vimalakīrti's deeds. Wishing to clarify these deeds, it first relates the origin and prologue; why is it not called 'Prologue Chapter' instead of 'Buddha Land'? If it is because Ratnākara questioned the Buddha and the Buddha explained the adornment and purification of Buddha lands that it is called 'Buddha Land', that only specifically clarifies the meaning of Buddha lands, and does not serve as the prologue recounting the reasons for preaching about Vimalakīrti. Just as the 'Prologue Chapter' of the *Lotus Sūtra* clarifies the seven kinds of maturation, such as preaching the immeasurable meanings, and should thus be called 'Chapter on Accomplishment', why then is it called 'Prologue Chapter'? Furthermore, all sūtras have a prologue chapter; why would this one alone lack it? Also, inferring the beginning from the end, since the last chapter is named 'Entrustment', why would the beginning lack a prologue chapter? The second is now named 'Chapter Revealing Inconceivable Skillful Means' (Xian bukexiyi fangbian shanqiao pin); Master Kumārajīva called it simply 'Chapter on Skillful Means' (Fangbian pin). The principle of skillful means applies to both the Lesser and Greater [Vehicles]; here, to reveal the Great, one should say 'Revealing the Inconceivable'; how could one simply say 'Skillful Means'? Moreover, within the Mahāyāna, skillful means encompasses both the provisional and the real; this chapter reveals the provisional rather than the real, which lower stages cannot fathom and whose wonderful function is peerless, hence called 'inconceivable skillfulness'. Distinguishing it from the small and from the real, it should not merely be named 'Chapter on Skillful Means'. Furthermore, the Sanskrit text has 'revealing inconceivable skillfulness'; why did Kumārajīva name it with a single term? The third is 'Chapter on the Śrāvakas' (Shengwen pin); Kumārajīva called it 'Chapter on the Disciples' (Dizi pin). Bodhisattvas and Śrāvakas are both disciples; why should the Śrāvakas alone receive the name of 'disciples'? Contemplating the small against the great, it should be named 'Śrāvakas' and not 'Disciples', not to mention that the Sanskrit text lacks the word for 'disciple'. The fifth is now named 'Chapter on Inquiring after Illness' (Wenji pin); Kumārajīva called it 'Chapter on Mañjuśrī's Inquiry after Illness' (Wenshushili wenji pin). Kumārajīva took the auspicious name at the head and marked it as the title. Now, it was not merely one person; therefore, it is generally called 'Inquiring after Illness'. Following the Sanskrit text, that [personal name] is indeed absent. The seventh is now named 'Chapter on Contemplating Sentient Beings' (Guan youqing pin); Kumārajīva called it 'Chapter on Contemplating Living Beings' (Guan zhongsheng pin). Plants and trees lack consciousness and are also called 'living beings' (zhongsheng); those with consciousness are called 'sentient' (youqing), which does not extend to grass and trees. Moreover, if the Sanskrit were *mahājana*, one could say 'living beings'; but since it is *sattva*, one says 'sentient beings' (youqing). The eighth is now named 'Chapter on the Factors of Awakening' (Putifen pin); Kumārajīva called it 'Chapter on the Buddha Path' (Fodao pin). *Bodhi* means awakening, which is the future Buddha-fruit; *pakṣa* (fen) means cause, these various practices being the causes for accomplishing awakening. Furthermore, *bodhi* means awakening, which is wondrous wisdom; *pakṣa* means branch/member, these being the limbs and branches of wondrous wisdom. Regarding 'Buddha path': 'Buddha' is the Buddha-fruit, and 'path' (dao) is the name of the cause, having the sense of a road. Taking it as the path to buddhahood, the meaning is acceptable. However, Master Sengzhao's intention was to equate Laozi's Dao with the Buddha's Dao and use it as the name. *Bodhi* means awakening, not the Dao; the Sanskrit pronunciation is contradicted, and the meaning is also confused. Could it be that at the stage of buddhahood there is no path? Therefore, it should properly be called 'Chapter on the Factors of Awakening'. The ninth is now named 'Chapter on the Non-dual Teaching' (Buer famen pin); Kumārajīva called it 'Chapter on Entering the Non-dual Teaching' (Ru buer famen pin). Now, since it clarifies the principle of the non-dual teaching, why bother to add the word 'Entering' (ru)? Kumārajīva thought that because Vimalakīrti was silent, he had 'entered' non-duality. If Mañjuśrī and the others spoke, they must have 'entered' duality. Because it generally illuminates the meaning of non-duality, the word 'Entering' is not needed. The Sanskrit text lacks the word 'entering'. The tenth is now named 'Chapter on the Incense Pavilion' (Xiangtai pin); Kumārajīva called it 'Chapter on the Accumulation of Incense' (Xiangji pin). The Buddha's body of fragrance is lofty and wondrous, resembling an incense pavilion. Merely saying 'Accumulation of Incense' means formed by piling up incense, lacking the sense of wondrous height. To reveal that the essence of that Buddha land is wonderfully lofty and vast, it should be called 'Incense Pavilion'. The twelfth is now named 'Chapter on Contemplating the Tathāgata' (Guan rulai pin); Kumārajīva called it 'Chapter on Akṣobhya Buddha' (Achufo pin). In that chapter, the Buddha asks Vimalakīrti: 'How do you contemplate the Tathāgata?' and it explains contemplating the dharmakāya Tathāgata and so forth. Later, because Śāriputra asked, it was then explained that Vimalakīrti came from the land of Akṣobhya Buddha; it does not solely clarify Akṣobhya Buddha. Calling it solely 'Akṣobhya Buddha' loses the intention of that chapter's doctrinal core, to say nothing of contradicting the Sanskrit text. It is simply that the regional language obscured the correct principle; since the meaning departed from its original doctrinal core, how could the title fail to be mistaken?