維摩義記 1.5

1.5

彌勒補處之士。豈容有其屈現受。不足彰維摩之高德。為兜率天王說不退轉行者。明彼天聞彌勒當生於彼欣情內著。是故問十住不退之行。淨名呵之遣諸天封著。所以為說不退行者。明彼天欣於此行得於菩提涅槃。由於其記得此果。得果由行發心。是以淨名一一非其五事。為用何生者。明心甚多耳。捉一心難不得記。過未現在耶者。明提一念之心以為三擬在三世。故定言過去未來現在耶。過去生已滅者。過去之心已滅不得記耶。未來生未至者。未至是未來無法。不得記也。現在不住者。念為三相成念念不住。不得記也。三處心無。其記安在。即時亦生亦老亦滅者。引佛語為證一念有三相。相分在三世。不得□□□生者是生相。老者是住相。滅者是滅相。文言若以無生至三菩提上□□□□□□□□□□空中亦不得記不破菩提但破記者。記於菩提是以合□□□□□□如生得受記者。上明空位中不得其記。此蹤空中得記。空應是□□□得記。今明如空中無生滅故。何有記也。所以者何者。所以彌勒得記便眾生同得者何。夫如者不二不異者。眾生彌勒同如不二。亦無彌勒得記眾生不得之異。空既無異。應同得也。第二從若彌勒得菩提至即菩提相。破菩提相也。第三若彌勒滅度以下至誘諸天子。破涅槃。第四實無發心者。破發心。亦無退者。破不退轉行也。捨於分別菩提之見以下重破菩提所以而然。明諸天子欣心菩提著相心多。是故重破。自下明菩提空。不論菩提。無性故空。但明菩提妙絕塵境。體無眾相故言為空。非謂無也。自下明破菩提。凡有其三。從至無生住滅故。菩提體空。捨分別菩提之見者。明菩提妙絕不可見也。所以者何。所以捨菩提見者何。不以身心得者。明菩提妙絕。絕於身心體。非身心。何其見也。寂滅以下凡有六段釋。初寂滅是菩提滅諸相故者。總明非身心得。是寂滅相也。第二從不觀是菩提至無憶念故。明菩提不觀於境不念境也。第三斷是菩提以下至無貪著故。明菩提斷於煩或。捨諸見離妄想故。明斷諸見。障諸願無貪著。斷五鈍。願者愛分別願。第四從順是菩提至實際故。明菩提無眾相體同三空。第五不二是菩提一句釋疑。上明順於三空謂為菩提。緣於三空故言為順。今言離意法故。無菩提為意。三空為法。故言離意法故也。下二句皆明菩提之體。第二知是菩提知眾生心行故者。上明菩提體空。時望心沒還。明菩提是有。了眾生心行。第三不會是菩提以下。上明菩提。了於心行時。情作有意而取。自下還明菩提之無相也。

Maitreya was a master who would succeed [to the Buddha's place]; how could there be any humiliation or acceptance [of fault] on his part? It was merely insufficient to manifest the lofty virtue of Vimalakīrti. In explaining the non-retrogressing practice to the king of the Tuṣita heaven: this explains that when that deva heard that Maitreya was to be born there, a joyful attachment arose within him; therefore, he asked about the non-retrogressing practice of the ten abodes. Vimalakīrti reproved him to eliminate the clingings and attachments of the devas. Why did he expound the non-retrogressing practice to them? This explains that those devas rejoiced in this practice to attain bodhi and nirvāṇa, and because of this prediction they would attain this fruit; attaining the fruit is due to the practice and the generation of the mind [of awakening]. Therefore, Vimalakīrti negated his five matters one by one. 'By which birth?': this clarifies that minds are very numerous; grasping a single mind is difficult, so one cannot receive a prediction. 'Past, future, or present?': this clarifies that taking the mind of a single thought-moment, three assessments are made regarding the three times; hence he asks determinately, 'past, future, or present?' 'The past birth has already ceased': if the past mind has already ceased, how can it receive a prediction? 'The future birth has not yet arrived': not yet arrived is a non-existent dharma of the future, so it cannot receive a prediction. 'The present does not abide': a thought-moment is composed of three characteristics, moment-by-moment not abiding, so it cannot receive a prediction. If the mind does not exist in the three places, where does its prediction reside? 'At that very moment, it also arises, ages, and ceases': citing the Buddha's words as proof that a single thought-moment has three characteristics, and their characteristics are distributed across the three times; one cannot […] 'Arising' is the characteristic of arising; 'aging' is the characteristic of abiding; 'ceasing' is the characteristic of cessation. The text says: 'If with non-arising […] to sambodhi […]' Above, […] also cannot receive a prediction within emptiness; this does not refute bodhi, but only refutes the prediction. The prediction is regarding bodhi, so it joins […] 'receiving a prediction as suchness is born': above it explained that within the position of emptiness one cannot receive its prediction; this concedes that one receives a prediction within emptiness. Emptiness should be […] receiving a prediction. Now it explains that because within the emptiness of suchness there is no arising or ceasing, how could there be a prediction? 'Why is this?': Why is it that if Maitreya receives a prediction, then sentient beings also attain it together? 'For suchness is non-dual and not different': sentient beings and Maitreya are identical in suchness, non-dual, nor is there any difference such that Maitreya receives a prediction while sentient beings do not. Since emptiness has no difference, they should attain it together. The second part, from 'If Maitreya attains bodhi' down to 'is itself the characteristic of bodhi', refutes the characteristic of bodhi. The third part, from 'If Maitreya enters extinction' down to 'enticing the devaputras', refutes nirvāṇa. The fourth part, 'There is truly no generating of the mind', refutes the generation of the mind; 'nor is there any regression' refutes the non-retrogressing practice. From 'Abandoning the view of distinguishing bodhi' downward: this refutes bodhi again. Why is this so? It explains that those devaputras rejoiced in bodhi with many minds attached to characteristics, so it refutes it again. From here down, it explains that bodhi is empty. It does not argue that bodhi is empty because of lacking inherent nature; it only explains that bodhi is wondrously cut off from the objective sensory realm, its substance lacking all characteristics, hence it is said to be empty; it does not mean non-existence. From here down, it explains the refutation of bodhi, having three [aspects] in all. From down to 'having no arising, abiding, or cessation', the substance of bodhi is empty. 'Abandoning the view of distinguishing bodhi' explains that bodhi is wondrously transcendent and cannot be seen. 'Why is this?': Why does one abandon the view of bodhi? 'Not attained through body or mind' explains that bodhi is wondrously transcendent, cut off from the substance of body and mind; being neither body nor mind, how could it be seen? From 'Quiescent extinction' downward, there are six sections of explanation in all. First, 'Quiescent extinction is bodhi, because it extinguishes all characteristics': this generally explains that it is not attained by body or mind, being the characteristic of quiescent extinction. Second, from 'Non-contemplation is bodhi' down to 'because of having no recollection': this explains that bodhi does not contemplate the objective realm and does not recollect the objective realm. Third, from 'Severance is bodhi' down to 'because of having no greedy attachment': this explains that bodhi severs afflictions and confusion; 'abandoning views and being free from false conceptualization' explains severing views; 'blocking all vows and having no greedy attachment' severs the five dull [afflictions]; 'vows' means love and discriminative wishing. Fourth, from 'Accordance is bodhi' down to 'the limit of reality': this explains that bodhi has no characteristics, its substance being identical with the three emptinesses. Fifth, the single phrase 'Non-duality is bodhi' resolves a doubt: above, it explained that according with the three emptinesses was regarded as bodhi, and conditioning the three emptinesses was called 'according'; now it says 'because of being free from mind and mental objects': there is no bodhi as the mind, and the three emptinesses as mental objects; hence it is said 'because of being free from mind and mental objects'. The lower two phrases both explain the substance of bodhi. Second, 'Knowing is bodhi, because it knows the mental activities of sentient beings': above it explained that the substance of bodhi is empty, and at that time expectations sank; turning back, it explains that bodhi is existent, understanding the mental activities of sentient beings. Third, from 'Not meeting is bodhi' downward: above, it explained that bodhi understands mental activities; at that time, feelings formed an intention and grasped at it; from here down, it turns back to explain the signlessness of bodhi.