維摩經疏 1.2

1.2

今就文中盡此品來明其所修。不思議品明其所成。就所修中又復有二。第一正明問答拂遣來去之相。第二且置已下明問答辨法。何故須拂來去之相。解有多義。一云。來去覆真故須拂遣。二者為欲解□□□□須拂遣。三者為下說由故須拂遣。四者為顯中道故須　□□五者為顯實惠方便故須拂遣。六者大人相見法作大言故是拂遣。論意如此。文中如何。初維摩先言。文殊述後。維摩詰言善來文殊師利者。慶其來好故言善來。亦可。文殊在道而來。安善以不故言善來。下拂其相。不來相而來□□□而見者。解有多義。略作四門。一約事無性解。二約理無性釋。三真俗二諦。四真應兩身。第一約事無性者。約就三世破其來相。今言來者。為是來竟時名來。為是未來時說來。為是正來時說來。於此三世求其來相既不可得。故知來者箇是無來。故言不來相。此即破其來相。而來者。破不來相。本說不來為欲破來。來既不有。不來亦無。故言而來。又不來者來家之不來。來家之不來故那得定不來。故不來相不可得。來者不來家之來。不來之來故那得定來。故來相亦不可得。第二理無性者。緣和故有。是以說來。無性故空故說不來。即是諸法不自來。亦不從他來。亦不共因來。亦不□□來。互相破遣義如上說。第三真俗二諦分別。真諦凝□故說不來。俗諦隨化是以說來。然真諦不來者。俗諦來家之不來。俗諦來者真諦不來家之來。故知真俗二諦來與不來並不可得。第四真應兩身分別者。真身平等不可說來及以不來。應身隨物示有去來。此即述文殊訖。不見相而見者。述彼文殊入舍見空。文殊見我室中空者。斯乃不見也。見既是不見。見空亦是不空。空廣欲解釋。不異前來不來中說也。上來維摩先言訖。

Now, within the text, throughout this chapter, what is cultivated is explained; the Inconceivable Chapter explains what is accomplished. Within what is cultivated, there are again two parts: first, directly clarifying the question and answer that clear away the marks of coming and going; second, from 'Let us set this aside' downward, clarifying the question and answer discussing dharmas. Why is it necessary to clear away the marks of coming and going? There are multiple explanations: First, because coming and going veil the real, they must be cleared away. Second, in order to […] they must be cleared away. Third, to provide the reason for what is spoken below, they must be cleared away. Fourth, to reveal the Middle Way, they must be cleared away. Fifth, to reveal real wisdom and skillful means, they must be cleared away. Sixth, when great persons meet, the Dharma entails speaking great words, so they are cleared away. Such is the import of the treatise. How is it in the text? First Vimalakīrti speaks, and Mañjuśrī relates afterward. 'Vimalakīrti said, "Welcome, Mañjuśrī!"': He rejoices at the goodness of his coming, hence he says 'Welcome.' It can also mean: Mañjuśrī, traveling on the road, came; asking whether he was well and at peace, he therefore says 'Welcome.' Below, he clears away its marks: 'Coming without the mark of coming, and seeing without [the mark of seeing].' There are multiple explanations, which can be briefly framed in four gates: 1. Interpreting in terms of phenomena having no nature; 2. Explaining in terms of principle having no nature; 3. The two truths of ultimate and conventional; 4. The two bodies of true and responsive. First, in terms of phenomena having no nature: relying on the three times, the mark of coming is refuted. Now when speaking of 'coming': is it called coming when coming is already finished? Is coming spoken of when it has not yet come? Or is coming spoken of at the very time of coming? Seeking the mark of coming across these three times is impossible; therefore know that coming is itself non-coming, hence it is said 'without the mark of coming.' This refutes the mark of coming. 'And yet coming' refutes the mark of non-coming. Originally speaking of non-coming was to refute coming; since coming does not exist, non-coming also does not exist; hence it is said 'and yet coming.' Furthermore, non-coming is the non-coming belonging to coming; since it is the non-coming belonging to coming, how could there be a fixed non-coming? Therefore the mark of non-coming cannot be found. Coming is the coming belonging to non-coming; since it is the coming of non-coming, how could there be a fixed coming? Therefore the mark of coming also cannot be found. Second, in terms of principle having no nature: because conditions harmonize, it exists, and therefore 'coming' is spoken of; because it lacks intrinsic nature, it is empty, and therefore 'non-coming' is spoken of. That is, dharmas do not come from themselves, nor do they come from another, nor do they come from a combined cause, nor do they come from [no cause]. Their mutual refutation is as explained above. Third, distinguishing by the two truths of ultimate and conventional: the ultimate truth is tranquil and [immutable], hence 'non-coming' is spoken of; the conventional truth accords with transformation, and therefore 'coming' is spoken of. However, the non-coming of the ultimate truth is the non-coming belonging to the coming of the conventional truth; the coming of the conventional truth is the coming belonging to the non-coming of the ultimate truth. Therefore know that in both the ultimate and conventional truths, coming and non-coming are equally unattainable. Fourth, distinguishing by the two bodies of true and responsive: the true body is impartial and cannot be spoken of as coming or non-coming; the responsive body accords with beings, demonstrating going and coming. This concludes describing Mañjuśrī. 'Seeing without the mark of seeing': this describes Mañjuśrī entering the room and seeing emptiness. Mañjuśrī seeing the emptiness within my room is itself non-seeing. Since seeing is itself non-seeing, seeing emptiness is also non-emptiness. To explain this at length would not differ from what was said above regarding coming and non-coming. This concludes Vimalakīrti's prior statement above.