維摩義記 1.15

1.15

初至云何觀眾生者。為小菩薩問答。言如幻師見幻識無實之甚。菩薩觀眾生空應如是。凡夫見水中月謂為實月。小菩薩應同大菩薩。智者知萬法如水影之不實。諸句類爾。通明即離我。就文難可取別。文殊問若無眾生云何有益。為假名眾生說其空法。明知空無其實生非無假名者。為說其空令其契解此理。永得涅槃畢竟離苦。乃是與樂之極。得名真實慈。就中凡三文。從初至如虛空故。就理以名慈。從羅漢以下就人以名慈。從菩提以下就眾行以名慈。所以名理為慈者。從理得樂緣中說慈也。行寂滅慈者。慈心中教前眾生修行寂滅。解理之心是樂。即名寂滅為慈。無所生者。釋上寂滅句。行不熱慈者。空理能除煩惱熱。行無諍慈者。亦以理能除諍也。諸句義類相似盡如虛空故。皆是緣中說盡取說者。內心為慈。行羅漢慈者。教前眾生修行斷煩惱。得作羅漢人。此人盡苦得樂。名人為慈。論慈正是菩薩內心。就所化人名。行菩薩慈者。教前眾生修行。作菩薩人。曠劫積德。在苦不染。壞樂自居。故名人為慈。安眾生者。釋菩薩之行。正以安人為先。教前眾生修行。未來得作如來人。畢竟離苦受樂之極。故名人為慈。下句皆釋上句。行佛慈亦就人名慈。前眾生修行成自然智。即是果為慈。無因得者。種智果生時。累外而來無相似因得故言自然。行菩提。慈亦就果明慈。無等亦爾。行大悲慈者。教前眾生修行得菩薩地中大悲行。此心能拔苦盡爾。即是至樂。名大悲心為慈。因中說慈。自下諸句類爾。次問悲。答。菩薩所作功德皆與一切眾生令使離苦。真名大悲。又問。生死有畏何所依杖。用慈心化物。當依如來功德之力。若欲依之。當先作何法行。修習功德行者依之。若能兼彼我化善歸焉故言之當住度脫一切眾生。若內慈未消。遇緣斯閱。若得妙悟在心。有惑斯盡。應感從緣見聞蒙益。答言。欲度眾生。當除煩惱。生福藉於有心。滅惑要由冥解。故答言。當修行空之正念。問。云何得此空解正念。答。心行性空故。無性可生無法可滅。問。何法無此生滅之性。不善業假名因緣而有。無實性可生。善業假緣而有。無性可滅。互舉一邊至欲明。煩惱無定性。所以可除。問。善惡業體誰為因。所以本其次第欲明。從緣生法無性故。空并列五陰生。或次第善惡由作起故。以身為本。身從貪欲生。即以為本。問。貪欲諸行誰為本。虛妄分別受心為本。問。受以誰為本。顛倒想為本。問。想以誰為本。無住識為本。識是攀緣之初無本。從識立四陰一切法也。華著身不墮者。將對身子生論。欲除時坐分別之心。道素位成。塵潔事隔。故欲去之。凡遺飾在心不在於事。問。何故去華。染生於心亦由於緣。無心之境而有分別之拔。出家之法實絕容飾。華在於己則同塵染。是以去之。勿謂此華分別之異。所以無之者何。分別是心。無心之華何所分別。謂華有分別者。即是分別之心。故言仁者自生分別想耳。為行佛所得寂滅涅槃真法。然後出家。應以無相為懷。心有分別。真不如法。若亡分別冥契寂滅。如是如法大士華所不著。已斷分別故爾。內壞真解萬相不染。故言已斷一切分別相故。未能如此。華則隨著。內有分別。色香隨著。止此久如。其德若此。如耆年得解脫。理時豈見有久近之相。答。空故無久近。身子謬取乃得解脫以來久近。故言久也。天曰。耆年得解脫。時空有久近耶。方悟空中無久近亦無所說。故默不答。若知解脫性空。言語性亦空。假言說空何所防也。豈離文字未解脫相。所以。文字性空同解脫性空者何。以多釋少。一切諸法皆無性故空解脫。亦以性不可得說解脫空。身子作難。若萬方法皆無實故空。佛何故說斷婬怒癡而得解脫。應當無法。何以得離。佛為婬怒癡人說斷婬怒癡方得解脫。亡詮之人契婬怒癡空即是解脫心。身子實欲作難言嘆善哉。譏辨超於人。必有妙德所問。何得何證。有得是著。永上所說。答。有為是可得。無為果可證。得證在心。觸事斯滯。即增上慢能作無得證之解。所習必勝。於三乘中志求何乘。有求存勝。亦求所說。以小乘法化眾生故。求聲聞乘。乃至以大悲化眾生故。我為大乘為物故求。實自無求無乘也。乘無存勝之心。如人入瞻蔔林以下。雖無著於勝求。大乘理中亦勝勸一切眾生。宜應修習故加嘆。大乘理無二乘故。但聞佛功德之香。止逕十二年順。答。身子言。有此妙德。何以不轉女身。似若形不免累。天曰。受此一化以來不見女像定性。何所轉也。自化人無實以喻女人無實。萬法亦然。轉身子形。欲令受解。天自改質。證其無性。問。何不轉女身者。頗有定女可轉作不方悟之也。若性是定。不應可轉。轉為女形。應以無性故變。疑於二邊故言不知何轉變為女身。天答。無其定性可轉。故言女定性可轉。一切女人亦應有定性可轉。如舍利弗無性故可轉。一切女人及萬法亦無性故可轉哉。佛說一切諸法非男女定性故定。女身色相今何所在者。反問身子令解。答。今是男形無向女形。女身相空。空亦空。故言不在。述其所解以當理。故引萬法亦無在無不在。佛所說猶是作難。既有如此妙德。生處必妙。故問當生何處。引化答之。化雖生而非生。如化之不生。我亦不生。眾生同我亦無實生。引高則大乘可階。故問之如得菩提。汝還為凡夫。吾實得菩提。復問。若無實得菩提。今諸佛得菩提已得當得。此言何號。答。皆是世俗文字數故假名為得。無實得者。同汝之無得。何以知。前文言菩提無住處無法可得無有得者無人能得。故知無實得者。維摩彰其遠德。令身子止論亦有心欣仰了。

From the beginning up to 'how should [a bodhisattva] observe sentient beings?' is a question and answer for lesser bodhisattvas. It says that just as an illusionist sees illusory forms and knows exceedingly well that they lack reality, so a bodhisattva observing the emptiness of sentient beings should be likewise. Ordinary persons see the moon in the water and take it to be the real moon; lesser bodhisattvas should be the same as great bodhisattvas. The wise know that the ten thousand dharmas are unreal like a reflection in water. The various phrases are similar to this. In general, they explain that [sentient beings are] fundamentally free from a self; in terms of the text, distinctions can hardly be drawn. Mañjuśrī asks: if there are no sentient beings, how can there be benefit? For prajñapti sentient beings, one explains this dharma of emptiness; clearly knowing that emptiness lacks real arising does not mean there are no prajñapti ones. Explaining their emptiness for them causes them to accord with and understand this principle, forever attaining nirvāṇa and completely leaving behind suffering. This is indeed the culmination of giving happiness, and is termed genuine benevolence (maitrī). Within this there are three passages in all. From the beginning up to 'because it is like empty space', benevolence is named in terms of the principle. From '[benevolence of an] arhat' downwards, benevolence is named in terms of persons. From '[benevolence of] bodhi' downwards, benevolence is named in terms of the myriad practices. Why is the principle named benevolence? It is spoken of as benevolence in the midst of conditions from which one obtains happiness from the principle. 'Practising quiescent benevolence' means that within the mind of benevolence one teaches the sentient beings before one to practise quiescence; the mind that understands the principle is happiness, so quiescence is named benevolence. 'Having nothing that arises' explains the preceding phrase on quiescence. 'Practising unheated benevolence' means that the principle of emptiness can remove the heat of defilements. 'Practising non-contentious benevolence' means that the principle can also remove contention. The meanings of the various phrases are similar: 'all being like empty space' means they are all spoken of in the midst of conditions, taking the inner mind of the speaker to be benevolence. 'Practising arhat benevolence' means teaching the sentient beings before one to practise and cut off defilements, becoming arhats; this person exhausts suffering and obtains happiness, so the person is named benevolence. In discussing benevolence, it is properly the inner mind of the bodhisattva, named after the person who is transformed. 'Practising bodhisattva benevolence' means teaching the sentient beings before one to practise and become bodhisattvas, accumulating virtue for vast kalpas, remaining undefiled in the midst of suffering, and abandoning happiness to abide on their own; thus the person is named benevolence. 'Pacifying sentient beings' explains the practice of a bodhisattva; properly it takes pacifying persons as foremost. Teaching the sentient beings before one to practise, so that in the future they can become Tathāgata persons, completely leaving suffering behind and experiencing the culmination of happiness; thus the person is named benevolence. The lower phrases all explain the upper phrases. 'Practising Buddha benevolence' is also named benevolence in terms of persons. When the sentient beings before one practise and achieve spontaneous gnosis, that is benevolence in terms of the fruit. 'Obtained without a cause' means that when the fruit of omniscient wisdom arises, it comes beyond defilements without a similar cause being obtained, hence it is said to be spontaneous. 'Practising bodhi benevolence' also explains benevolence in terms of the fruit. 'Without equal' is likewise. 'Practising great compassionate benevolence' means teaching the sentient beings before one to practise and attain the practice of great compassion within the bodhisattva stages; this mind can pull out suffering completely, which is supreme happiness, so the mind of great compassion is named benevolence. Benevolence is spoken of in the midst of causes; the various phrases from here on are similar. Next compassion (karuṇā) is asked about. The answer is: the merits a bodhisattva performs are all given to all sentient beings to make them leave behind suffering; this is truly named great compassion. Again it is asked: saṃsāra has fears, what should one rely upon? To transform sentient beings with a mind of benevolence, one should rely on the power of the Tathāgata's merit. If one wishes to rely on it, what practice of the Dharma should one first perform? One who cultivates and trains in meritorious practice relies on it. If one can encompass both self and other so that transformative goodness returns to them, therefore it is said that one should abide in delivering all sentient beings. If inner benevolence has not dissolved, upon meeting conditions it will be displayed; if wonderful awakening is attained in the mind, whatever confusion exists will be exhausted. Responding to resonance according with conditions, seeing and hearing will receive benefit. The reply says: if one wishes to deliver sentient beings, one should eliminate defilements. Producing merit relies on having mind; extinguishing delusion fundamentally depends on dark understanding. Therefore the reply says: one should practise right mindfulness of emptiness. It is asked: how does one attain this right mindfulness of understanding emptiness? The reply: because mental activity is empty of intrinsic nature, there is no nature that can arise and no dharma that can be extinguished. It is asked: what dharma lacks this nature of arising and extinguishing? Unwholesome karma exists through prajñapti and causes and conditions; it has no real nature that can arise. Wholesome karma exists through prajñapti and conditions; it has no nature that can be extinguished. Raising both sides alternately is intended to clarify that defilements have no fixed nature, which is why they can be eliminated. It is asked: what serves as the cause for the substance of wholesome and unwholesome karma? The reason for tracing back its order is to clarify that dharmas arisen from conditions are empty because they have no intrinsic nature; it also enumerates the arising of the five skandhas. Wholesome and unwholesome arise sequentially from action, so they take the body as their basis. The body arises from desire, which is then taken as its basis. It is asked: what serves as the basis for desire and the various conditioned activities? False discrimination and the mind of feeling serve as the basis. It is asked: what does feeling take as its basis? Inverted conception takes as its basis. It is asked: what does conception take as its basis? Non-abiding consciousness serves as its basis. Consciousness is the beginning of clinging to conditions and has no basis. From consciousness are established the four skandhas and all dharmas. That the flowers adhered to the body and did not fall off: this is to raise a debate with Śāriputra. When he wished to remove them, it was due to a discriminating mind. The path is naturally established in simplicity; defilement and purity are separated by phenomena, so he wished to remove them. In general, renouncing adornment lies in the mind, not in outer phenomena. It is asked: why remove the flowers? Defilement arises in the mind, but also due to conditions. In an object without mind, there is the picking of discrimination. The rule of going forth indeed cuts off bodily adornment; when the flowers are on oneself, they are identical to defilement, which is why he removed them. Do not say that these flowers have differences of discrimination. Why do they not have them? Discrimination is mind; how can flowers without mind discriminate? To say that flowers have discrimination is itself the discriminating mind; hence it is said, 'You yourself, Benevolent One, produce discriminating conception.' One goes forth only to practise the true dharma of quiescent nirvāṇa attained by the Buddha, and thereafter one should hold formlessness (ānimitta) in one's bosom. If the mind has discrimination, it is truly not in accord with the Dharma. If one obliterates discrimination and secretly accords with quiescence, this is in accord with the Dharma; the flowers do not adhere to great beings because they have already severed discrimination. Internally destroying [illusions], with true understanding the myriad forms do not defile; hence it is said, 'because all marks of discrimination have already been severed.' If one is not yet able to be like this, the flowers then adhere; if internally there is discrimination, colour and fragrance follow and adhere. 'How long have you stayed here?': her virtue being like this, just as when the venerable one attained liberation, how could the marks of long or short be seen in the principle? The answer: because of emptiness, there is neither long nor short. Śāriputra erroneously took it as the length of time since attaining liberation, hence he said 'long'. The devī said: 'When the venerable one attained liberation, was there long or short in emptiness?' Only then did he awaken to the fact that in emptiness there is neither long nor short, nor anything to be said, so he remained silent without answering. If one knows that the nature of liberation is empty, the nature of language is also empty; what impediment can there be in prajñapti words explaining emptiness? How could there be a mark of not being liberated apart from letters? Why is the nature of letters empty just like the nature of liberation? It is explaining the few by means of the many. Because all dharmas lack intrinsic nature and are empty, liberation is also said to be empty because intrinsic nature cannot be obtained. Śāriputra raised a challenge: if all the myriad dharmas are empty because they lack reality, why did the Buddha teach that by cutting off lust, anger, and delusion one attains liberation? There should be no dharmas; how could one be separated from them? The Buddha spoke of cutting off lust, anger, and delusion to attain liberation for people of lust, anger, and delusion. A person who abandons expression accords with the emptiness of lust, anger, and delusion, which is itself the mind of liberation. Śāriputra really wished to raise a challenge, saying and praising, 'Excellent!' His mocking debate surpassed humans, so she must have wonderful virtue. He asked: what have you attained and what have you realized? Having attainment is attachment, forever [opposing] what was said above. The answer: conditioned dharmas can be attained, and the unconditioned fruit can be realized. When attainment and realization are in the mind, one is obstructed in everything one encounters, which is superior pride. Being able to form an understanding free from attainment and realization, what one cultivates must be superior. 'Among the three vehicles, which vehicle do you aspire to seek?' Having seeking preserves superiority, which also seeks what was said. Because of transforming sentient beings with the Hīnayāna dharma, I seek the śrāvaka vehicle, up to: because of transforming sentient beings with great compassion, I seek the Mahāyāna for the sake of beings; in reality, I myself have no seeking and no vehicle. The vehicle lacks a mind that preserves superiority. 'Like a person entering a campaka forest' downwards: although free from attachment to superior seeking, in the principle of the Mahāyāna it is also superior; she urges that all sentient beings ought to cultivate and train in it, hence she adds praise. In the principle of the Mahāyāna there are no two vehicles, so one only smells the fragrance of the Buddha's merit. 'I have stayed for twelve years': answering compliantly. Śāriputra said: having such wonderful virtue, why do you not transform your female body? It seems as if the physical form is not free from burdens. The devī said: since receiving this single transformation, I have not seen any fixed nature in a female form; what is there to transform? Showing that an illusory person lacks reality illustrates that a woman lacks reality; the ten thousand dharmas are also like this. Transforming Śāriputra's form was to make him understand; the devī changed her own substance to verify its lack of intrinsic nature. It was asked: why do you not transform your female body? Can there be a fixed woman that can be transformed or not? Only then did he awaken to it. If the nature were fixed, it could not be transformed; transforming into a female form must be changing due to lack of intrinsic nature. Doubting both extremes, hence he said, 'I do not know how I was transformed into a female body.' The devī answered: there is no fixed nature that can be transformed. Hence she said: if a woman's fixed nature could be transformed, all women should also have a fixed nature that could be transformed; just as Śāriputra can be transformed because of lacking intrinsic nature, can all women and the ten thousand dharmas also be transformed because of lacking intrinsic nature? The Buddha taught that all dharmas are not of a fixed nature as male or female, hence they are fixed [in emptiness]. 'Where are the physical marks of the female body now?': asking Śāriputra in return to make him understand. The reply: now it is a male form, without the previous female form. The marks of a female body are empty, and emptiness is also empty; hence he says it is not present. Stating his understanding to match the principle, he therefore cites that the ten thousand dharmas are also neither present nor not present. What the Buddha said was still a challenge: since she has such wonderful virtue, the place she will be born must be wonderful, hence he asks where she will be born. Citing an illusion, she answers him: an illusion, though appearing to arise, does not arise; just as an illusion does not arise, I also do not arise. Sentient beings, like me, also have no real arising. Citing the high so that the Mahāyāna can be scaled, he therefore asks her: 'If you attain bodhi, will you still be an ordinary person? I have truly attained bodhi.' He further asks: if there is no real attainment of bodhi, how is it designated when the present Buddhas attain bodhi, have attained it, or will attain it? The answer: these are all conventional words and numbers, so it is prajñapti called attainment. Having no real attainment is identical to your non-attainment. How is this known? The previous text says that bodhi has no dwelling place, has no dharma that can be attained, has no one who attains it, and no person can attain it; hence one knows there is no real attainment. Vimalakīrti manifested her distant virtue to make Śāriputra cease his debate, and also caused his mind to admire and clearly understand.