[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [維摩義記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2768) › 1.12 # 維摩義記 1.12 維摩義記 1.12 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2768.1.12) 當於何坐者。因空室生上問。何以空為除分別之見。令空得顯。空理獲利。於上聖益有由。寄心近事身子生念。因念呵之。言違而理順。因其空旨下。諸天子發心即其事也。為法來也者。欲使移心在法。得明法相理是無求。遣其求著之情。身子知識難因床坐生念。意在求法。故言為法。不貪軀命者。不貪生死軀命。何況安軀命之處。夫求法者以下廣釋不貪求軀命意也。不應計有色乃至界入成就。由是求生死。非是真求之謂也。不應計有三界容身之處然後求法。又不應計三寶定實之性求學之處。亦不應念四諦。是定性空是所解之境。所以者何。以不得存有而求法者。何亦應所以不存三寶三界陰入界等。此所以者何盡釋上六法。但文略不能具安也。若存定有無。即是戲論。與法相理乖。何名求法。凡言戲論者。躁動不定無所專執所論無當。若著有無即是戲心。隨執心定必論在言。若爾何關於法。法名寂滅以下。還播上所存有名求法。法名寂滅者。冥諦理是寂滅之法。若謂五陰是生滅。是求生滅。非求寂滅真法。法名無染。若染於十二是求十二。非求無染之法。真法無行處。若存十八。是求行法。非求無行之法。法無取捨者。業感三界報身為取。背下生上為捨。下生亦然。若存三界。可取可捨。是求取捨之法。非真淨無取捨之法。法無處所若存三寶是求處所之法非真求無處所之法。法名無相若存苦是求苦相非求真法。法名無住。若存滅是住。是名求住。非求真諦無住之法。法無見聞覺知。若存道體。是見聞覺知。是名求道。非求真法。法名無為。若存集是有為。是名求集。非求真法。若求真法。於一切法應無所求。居士問文殊。何處國土有好上妙之坐者。上違身子為欲益物。五百天子得法眼淨。是上違身子之意也。今順文殊得顯不思議之迹下天子發心。是順益也。今取坐乃問文殊者。至欲彰文殊無方所逕事遠靜形入定妙坐自應本迹事彰。故言現神通力。正明維摩不思議大士之心。見法無定性。隨心所成去來無閡。即是解脫妙智之能。降已以還。觀迹不測其本。故曰不思議。坐既高廣。內相合容。外不迫迮。亦是不思議之迹。當建立汝身與坐像等。明彼佛身長八萬四千由旬坐亦如之。坐則四萬二千由旬。故言如彼坐像。又言如彼坐者。借彼土菩薩之坐。何以得知。維摩借坐欲安大眾。佛坐高廣乃八萬四千。是以知也。像者噵彼佛坐像也　故言如坐像。由福薄感見而不從心用。言不能昇。為燈王作禮乃可坐者。法身妙應致敬必濃　還藉此一福可為身用。身子覩大士所為妙出二乘。所以加嘆。小室容大乃至四天。都為不思議也。有解脫以下。廣明一切不思議事。成就四大轉變迭相容納。或就形聲時節皆不思議也。有眾生應有七日壽命心樂久住。菩薩稱其心願演七日為一劫。應有一劫壽命。不樂久住。即促一劫為七日。皆未覺之者。大士所為已所不逮。如盲不矚萬像。嗟嘆深矣。勸知發心習。大有可怖之理。自恨習小。為教所局。於大乘絕分。其猶敗種。皆應號泣聲振三千。聲不必至三千。但求大涅槃悲嘆情重。痛甚割膚應至三千。菩薩大欣慶。是己之分勸。若能發心得解不思議者。魔王外道不能加害。不列魔王者。上明魔所不加小。菩薩未能深解大士現為魔王乞士。逼試菩薩令其堅固。恐不識真偽。至欲安慰其懷也。此品中未科格。大判不過二種。從初至得法眼淨。明第一義諦不思議。第二從爾時長者以下訖品。明世諦不思議也。 > "Where are we to sit?" This question arises due to the empty room. Why make it empty? To eliminate differentiating views, to allow emptiness to be revealed, and so that benefit is obtained from the principle of emptiness. There being a basis for the benefit of the sage above, Śāriputra, turning his mind toward immediate matters, gave rise to a thought. Because of that thought \[Vimalakīrti\] rebuked him: the words were contrary, but the principle was compliant. Because of that purport of emptiness, the devaputras below generated the \[bodhi-\]mind—this was the very matter. "Did you come for the sake of the Dharma?" This means he wished to turn \[Śāriputra's\] mind to the Dharma, so that he might understand that the principle of the marks of dharmas is non-seeking, thereby dispatching his attitude of seeking and clinging. It was difficult for Śāriputra as a wise teacher to give rise to a thought on account of beds and seats; his intention lay in seeking the Dharma, hence it is said, "For the sake of the Dharma." "Not coveting body or life" means not coveting body and life in saṃsāra, much less a place to rest body and life. The text from "One who seeks the Dharma..." onward broadly explains the meaning of not coveting or seeking body and life. One should not reckon that there is form, up to the completion of dhātus and āyatanas. To seek saṃsāra by such means is not what is called truly seeking. One should not reckon that there is a place in the traidhātuka to accommodate the body and only then seek the Dharma. Nor should one reckon that the Three Jewels have a fixed, real nature as a place to seek learning. Nor should one conceptualise that the Four \[Noble\] Truths are of fixed nature and empty as an object to be understood. Why is this? Because one must not retain existence while seeking the Dharma. Why should one also not retain the Three Jewels, the traidhātuka, the skandhas, the āyatanas, the dhātus, and so forth? This "why is this?" fully explains the above six dharmas, but the text is brief and cannot set them all out in full. If one retains fixed existence or non-existence, that is frivolous argumentation (prapañca) and contradicts the principle of the marks of dharmas; how could it be called seeking the Dharma? Generally speaking, "frivolous argumentation" refers to being restless, unfixed, not exclusively attached, and making arguments that are improper. If one clings to existence or non-existence, that is a frivolous mind; following the mind's clinging and fixing, the argument necessarily rests in words. If so, what does it have to do with the Dharma? The text from "Dharma is called extinction..." onward turns back to dispel the above clinging to existence in the name of seeking the Dharma. "Dharma is called extinction" means that the principle of profound truth is the dharma of extinction. If one says that the five skandhas are arising and ceasing, that is seeking arising and ceasing, not seeking the true dharma of extinction. "Dharma is called non-defilement": if one is defiled by the twelve \[āyatanas\], that is seeking the twelve, not seeking the dharma of non-defilement. The true dharma has no sphere of activity: if one retains the eighteen \[dhātus\], that is seeking dharmas of activity, not seeking the dharma devoid of activity. "Dharma has no grasping or discarding": taking retribution bodies in the traidhātuka through karma is grasping; turning away from lower rebirths to be born above is discarding; rebirth below is also like this. If one retains the traidhātuka as something that can be grasped or discarded, that is seeking the dharma of grasping and discarding, not the true and pure dharma devoid of grasping and discarding. "Dharma has no location": if one retains the Three Jewels, that is seeking the dharma of location, not truly seeking the dharma devoid of location. "Dharma is called signless": if one retains suffering, that is seeking the sign of suffering, not seeking the true dharma. "Dharma is called non-abiding": if one retains cessation as abiding, that is called seeking abiding, not seeking the dharma of non-abiding of the paramārtha-satya. "Dharma has no seeing, hearing, perceiving, or cognising": if one retains the essence of the path as seeing, hearing, perceiving, or cognising, that is called seeking the path, not seeking the true dharma. "Dharma is called unconditioned (asaṃskṛta)": if one retains origin (samudaya) as conditioned (saṃskṛta), that is called seeking origin, not seeking the true dharma. If one seeks the true dharma, one should have nothing to seek among all dharmas. The layman asked Mañjuśrī: "In which realm are there fine, supreme seats?" Previously, opposing Śāriputra was done out of a desire to benefit beings, and five hundred devaputras attained the purity of the Dharma-eye—that was the intention of opposing Śāriputra above. Now, complying with Mañjuśrī reveals the traces of the acintya; below, the devaputras generate the \[bodhi-\]mind—this is compliant benefit. Now, in obtaining seats, he then asks Mañjuśrī because he ultimately wishes to make manifest that Mañjuśrī has no fixed place, his past deeds are distant and quiet, and his body enters meditative concentration, so the wondrous seats should naturally appear through the manifestation of origin and traces. Hence it says "manifesting supernatural power." This directly clarifies the mind of Vimalakīrti, the great acintya being: seeing that dharmas have no fixed nature, following the mind's accomplishments, his coming and going are unobstructed; this is the capacity of the wondrous wisdom of liberation. From his own level on down, one observes the traces without measuring their origin; hence it is called "inconceivable" (acintya). The seats being tall and wide, internally they accommodate one another, and externally they are not cramped; this also is a trace of the acintya. "You should establish your body to be equal to the seat-image": this explains that that Buddha's body is eighty-four thousand yojanas tall, and the seat is likewise. When seated, it is forty-two thousand yojanas; hence it says "like that seat-image." It also says "like that seat" because they borrowed the seats of the bodhisattvas of that land. How is this known? Vimalakīrti borrowed seats wishing to seat the great assembly, and the Buddha's seat was as tall and wide as eighty-four thousand \[yojanas\]; therefore this is known. "Image" refers to the image of that Buddha's seat; hence it says "like the seat-image." Due to meager merit, they perceived them through karmic resonance but could not use them as their minds wished, saying that they were unable to ascend. Only by paying homage to Merupradīparāja could they sit, because for the wondrous response of the dharmakāya, the rendering of reverence must be profound; in turn, relying on this single merit, it could be used for their bodies. Śāriputra, seeing that what the great being did wonderfully surpassed the dviyāna, therefore praised it all the more. A small room accommodating the vast, extending to the four heavens, is entirely acintya. The text from "There is liberation..." onward broadly explains all acintya matters. Effecting the transformation of the four great elements, mutually accommodating one another, or regarding forms, sounds, and seasons—all are acintya. There are sentient beings who ought to have a lifespan of seven days and whose minds delight in abiding long; the bodhisattva, according with their wish, expands seven days into an eon. If they ought to have a lifespan of an eon and do not delight in abiding long, he shortens one eon into seven days. All those who have not yet realised this find that what the great beings do is beyond their reach, like the blind who do not see myriad forms; their lamentation is deep. Urging them to know and generate the \[bodhi-\]mind and practice the Great \[Vehicle\], there is reason to be terrified; they regret having practiced the Small \[Vehicle\], being confined by its teaching and lacking any share in the Mahāyāna, just like spoiled seeds. All should wail and weep with voices shaking the three thousand \[worlds\]. The voice does not necessarily reach three thousand, but the grief and sighing in seeking the great nirvāṇa are heavy; the pain is more severe than slicing the skin, so it should reach three thousand. The bodhisattvas greatly rejoice, as this is their own share, and urge \[others\] that if they can generate the mind and attain understanding of the acintya, the demon kings and heterodox teachings will not be able to harm them. That the demon kings are not listed is because it was explained above that demons do not harass \[them\]; minor bodhisattvas are not yet able to deeply understand, so the great beings manifest as demon kings and mendicants to press and test the bodhisattvas to make them firm, fearing that they might not recognise the genuine from the false, ultimately wishing to comfort their minds. In this chapter, if classified without sub-sections, the overarching division is no more than two parts: from the beginning to attaining the purity of the Dharma-eye clarifies the acintya of the paramārtha-satya; the second, from "at that time the elder..." to the end of the chapter, clarifies the acintya of the saṃvṛti-satya. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2768.1.11) - [Next: 1.13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2768.1.13) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2768.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2768~en-mt.1.12) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2768.1.12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2768.1.12) · Pramāṇa