宗鏡錄 32.5

32.5

答曰。若言經中無對法門解釋義者。此經佛道品。普現色身菩薩。問維摩詰言。居士父母妻子親戚眷屬等。悉為是誰。大士偈答言。智度菩薩母等。淨名既是在家菩薩。何容無有父母妻子家宅。而不依事答。悉約內行法門答者。當知諸佛菩薩。不起道法。現凡夫事。雖現凡事。皆內表道法也。如佛般涅槃處在雙樹。四枯四榮。豈可直作樹木之解。且如來誠說。皆表半滿枯榮。今在毘耶菴羅樹園。欲說不思議解脫法門。不捨道法。現迹同凡。住毘耶離。豈不表極地所住法門也。華嚴經明十城十園。豈止是世間城園也。此經下文菩薩行品云。諸佛威儀。有所進止。無非佛事。何得俱作事解。都不尋思諸佛菩薩不思議教。善權祕密表發之事。又法華經云。欲說是經。應入如來室。著如來衣。坐如來座。如來室者。乃是大慈悲心。如來衣者。即是柔和忍辱。如來座者。即是一切法空。

The answer says: If one were to say that within the sūtras there is no meaning of explaining by matching with Dharma gates, then in this sūtra's Chapter on the Buddha Path, Bodhisattva Samantarūpasaṃdarśana asked Vimalakīrti: 'Householder, who are your parents, wife, children, relatives, retinue, and so forth?' The Great Being answered in verse, saying: 'The perfection of wisdom is the mother of the bodhisattva,' and so forth. Since Vimalakīrti was a lay bodhisattva, how could he have lacked parents, wife, children, and a home? Yet he did not answer according to external facts, but answered entirely in terms of inner practice and Dharma gates. One should know that the buddhas and bodhisattvas, without giving up the qualities of the Path, manifest the affairs of ordinary beings; although they manifest ordinary affairs, they all inwardly express the qualities of the Path. For instance, the place of the Buddha's parinirvāṇa was between the twin trees, four withered and four flourishing: how could one take them merely to be wooden trees? Moreover, the sincere words of the Tathāgata all represent the partial and complete, the withered and flourishing. Now, being in the Āmrapālī grove in Vaiśālī and wishing to expound the Dharma gate of inconceivable liberation, he did not abandon the qualities of the Path but manifested traces identical to the ordinary, dwelling in Vaiśālī: does this not represent the Dharma gate in which the ultimate stage abides? When the Avataṃsakasūtra explains the ten cities and the ten parks, could they merely be worldly cities and parks? The later text of this sūtra, the Chapter on Bodhisattva Practice, says: 'Whatever deportment the buddhas assume in advancing and stopping is nothing other than buddha-work.' How could one interpret them entirely as mundane affairs and not reflect at all on the inconceivable teachings of the buddhas and bodhisattvas, and on their matters of expedient, secret expression? Furthermore, the Lotus Sūtra says: 'If one wishes to preach this sūtra, one should enter the room of the Tathāgata, put on the robe of the Tathāgata, and sit on the seat of the Tathāgata. The room of the Tathāgata is the mind of great loving-kindness and compassion; the robe of the Tathāgata is gentleness and forbearance; the seat of the Tathāgata is the emptiness of all dharmas.'