維摩經疏 1.11

1.11

自下三問顯彼維摩病應非真。亦可。得言單明實惠。文中先問病相。次問所在。後問病體。文殊師利言居士所疾為何等相者問也。居士所病軀狀如何。故言何相。自下維摩答言我病無形不見。釋有二意。一者若彰病應有。言我本無病為眾生故假現有病。假病之病有何形相。二者若彰病實無。言我病本空何相可見也。自下文殊問病所在。又問此病身合耶心合耶者。為身痛耶為心痛乎。問曰。維摩已言我病無形不可見。何須更問身合心合。答曰。利根雖解能鈍根未悟。又復雖說無形何妨與身心合。故須更問。下亦例知。維摩答曰非身合身相離故亦非心合心如幻故。離者空也。身相本空何有病合。此以無相性答也。心本不有。似幻而生。何有病合。此以依他性答也。前言相離後言如幻者互為文也。亦可。身是分別性。是故一向言離。心是他依性。是以說如幻。故攝論云。幻等顯依他說無顯分別。此即彰病實無也。復次亦明病應有。非身合身相離故者。身相理空病體應有故非身合。亦非心合心如幻者。心同幻無。病隨應有故非心合。此彰病有。自下問其病體。又問地大水大火大風大於此四大何大之病者。自下維摩答言非地大亦不離地大水火風大亦復如是。約理無性解者。非地大明即大無病。亦不離地大者明離大亦無病。約應有解者。非地大明病實無。亦不離地大彰病應有。水火風大亦復如是。而眾生病從四大起以其有病是故我病。解亦有二。約理無解者。眾生之病從四大起以眾生病故我現病。我應病故即大亦無離大亦無。約應有解者。眾生之病從四大起我為眾生所以現病是故我病。亦不離大也。上來八問問彼維摩身上事訖。

From here below, three questions reveal that Vimalakīrti's illness is an adaptation and not real. It may also be said that they solely clarify real wisdom. In the text, he first inquires about the characteristics of the illness, next inquires about its location, and finally inquires about the substance of the illness. "Mañjuśrī said: 'What are the characteristics of the householder's illness?'" is the question. What is the physical appearance of the householder's illness? Hence he asks: "What are its characteristics?" From here below, Vimalakīrti answered: "My illness has no form and cannot be seen." There are two meanings in the explanation. First, if indicating that the illness is an adaptation: he means, "I originally have no illness, but for the sake of sentient beings, I provisionally manifest having an illness. What form or characteristic could an illness of provisional illness have?" Second, if indicating that the illness is truly non-existent: he means, "My illness is originally empty; what characteristic could be seen?" From here below, Mañjuśrī inquires about the location of the illness: "He further asked: 'Is this illness connected with the body, or is it connected with the mind?'" Is it physical pain or mental pain? Question: Vimalakīrti has already said: "My illness has no form and cannot be seen." Why is it necessary to further ask about its connection with the body or the mind? Answer: Although those of sharp faculties understand, those of dull faculties have not yet awakened. Moreover, even though it is said to have no form, how could that prevent it from being connected with the body or the mind? Therefore he must ask further. The following should be understood by analogy. Vimalakīrti answered: "It is not connected with the body, because the characteristics of the body are dissociated; nor is it connected with the mind, because the mind is like an illusion." "Dissociated" means empty: the characteristics of the body are originally empty, so how could there be an illness connected with it? This answers by means of the signless nature. The mind originally does not exist, but arises like an illusion, so how could there be an illness connected with it? This answers by means of the dependent nature. The preceding statement of "characteristics are dissociated" and the following statement of "like an illusion" are complementary phrasing. It may also be that the body is the discriminated nature, and therefore is spoken of as completely dissociated; the mind is the dependent nature, and therefore is said to be like an illusion. Thus the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: "Illusion and so forth reveal the dependent; absence of non-existence reveals the discriminated." This then indicates that the illness is truly non-existent. Furthermore, it also clarifies that the illness is an adaptation. "It is not connected with the body, because the characteristics of the body are dissociated": the characteristics of the body are empty in principle, while the substance of the illness is an adaptation, and therefore it is not connected with the body. "Nor is it connected with the mind, because the mind is like an illusion": the mind is non-existent like an illusion, while the illness is an adaptation, and therefore it is not connected with the mind. This indicates that the illness exists. From here below, he asks about the substance of the illness: "He further asked: 'Among the four great elements—the earth element, water element, fire element, and wind element—of which great element is this illness?'" From here below, Vimalakīrti answered: "It is not the earth element, yet it is not separate from the earth element. The water, fire, and wind elements are also like this." Explained in terms of the principle of having no nature: "It is not the earth element" clarifies that within the element there is no illness; "yet it is not separate from the earth element" clarifies that apart from the element there is also no illness. Explained in terms of it being an adaptation: "It is not the earth element" clarifies that the illness is truly non-existent; "yet it is not separate from the earth element" reveals that the illness is an adaptation. The water, fire, and wind elements are also like this. "Yet the illnesses of sentient beings arise from the four great elements; because they have illness, therefore I am ill." The explanation also has two [aspects]. Explained in terms of non-existence in principle: The illnesses of sentient beings arise from the four great elements; because sentient beings are ill, therefore I manifest illness. Because my illness is an adaptation, it does not exist within the elements, nor does it exist apart from the elements. Explained in terms of it being an adaptation: The illnesses of sentient beings arise from the four great elements; for the sake of sentient beings I manifest illness, therefore I am ill. It is also not separate from the elements. The eight questions inquiring about matters concerning Vimalakīrti's person are concluded above.