維摩經疏 1.25

1.25

自下明其所成。由前修智及修悲故遂得成於不住道行。由修智故不住生死。由修悲故不住涅槃。自下文義亦皆易解。如疏中釋　不思議品者。經中亦名不可思議。通而言之。唯是一義。別而言之。非不差異。異相者。據真望妄。真外無妄。既不有望。亦無對之真心言寂。故名不思議。據妄望真。妄外有真。妄外之真情緣叵及。名不可思。口言靡逮□不可議。餘義如疏廣說。前問疾品離過行中明其所修。不思議品離過行中顯其所成。故此品來。就此品中文有□□□□□子念座維摩身現不思議德。第二舍利言亦□□□□下因身子讚歎維摩口宣不思議事。第三是時大□□迦葉傷歎維摩辯出不思議人。就初段中文復有□□□明念座。第二維摩教訶。第三為其取座。爾時舍利□□□□□□有床座作是念斯諸菩薩大弟子眾當於何座者□第一申子念訖。念座者。由前室空故興。若不空室。念此□□燈王妙座無由得至。問曰。何故舍利弗數數生念。答曰。此經陶練聲聞令其厭小忻大。聲聞之中舍利弗者智惠第一。明其念即被訶。知彼聲聞不及。申子智惠尚被訶嘖。令其餘者自鄙狹劣忻求大乘。又復申子聰明第一。不念即已。念必顯法。為此義故數數生念。自下第二明教文中有二。第一正舉教訶之辭。第二說是已下明說利益□舉□訶。夫求法者已下次明教也。訶解就教之中□□□□一正教是故已下總結。就正教中文復有二。第一□□□□□捨相。第二所以者何已下明有相者非真□□□□□□□中文復有二。初明捨染相。次唯舍利□□□□□□□□似求已下明捨淨相。論其意者。法空理□□□□□□□可得故求法者不得於彼染淨中求。是故□□□□□解不容言路。就彼第二明有相者。非求法□□□□徵問。所以求法齊捨染淨之相者何下有十句□□□□釋十句經文攝為五對。初有兩句。一對明有淨相者非真求法。後有八句四對明有染相者非真求法。就前淨相一對之中。初句明法生情有情取者非求法。後句明法出相有心者非真求法。前句即離淨心。後句即離相。法無戲論者正明法出情。四智非實事同戲論。真中離此。是故言無。若言我當見苦斷集滅證修道。是則戲論非求法也。此明有情取者非真求法。此之□明離淨心訖。自下一句明離淨相。唯舍利弗法名寂滅者。此明法離相。安立諦中四諦生滅名為不□□□諦離此四相故稱寂滅。若行生滅是求生滅□□□此明有相心者非真求法。四諦之中□□□□□□□□諦無為稱之為滅。行此生滅非求□□□□□□□明有淨相者非真求法。自下八句四對□□□□□□真求法初有四句兩對。明離數法。次□□□□□離心王。前離數法中初兩句一對。明離貪□□□□□明離惠數。離貪之中前句無能緣心。後句□□□□法名無染者。貪心愛著名之曰染。真中□□□□無此明法出情。若染於法乃至涅槃。是則染著非求法也。若染於法染世諦法。乃至涅槃染真諦法。此明有情取者非真求法。自下一句明離貪境。法無取捨者。貪所緣境好者取惡者須捨。真中離此。故無取捨。此明法離相名取捨法。是則取捨非求法也。此明有相心者非真求法。自下兩句明離惠數。前句明離惠心。後句離惠所緣境。法無行處者。惠心取□□□□□處真中無此故無行處。此明法出情。若行□□□□行處非求法也。此明有情取者非□□□□□□□□□所緣境法無處所者。境界之□□□□□□□□□法如理中離此處所。是以言□□□□□□□□□□所。是則著處非求法也。此明有心者□□□□□□□句兩對。明離數法訖。自下四句兩對。明離□□□□□□□明離七識八識心王。後兩句一對明離□□□□□□□對中。前句離能緣心。後句離所緣境。法名□□□□□□□那識。依舊來解。是人我相。今時新義通法我相。阿梨耶識亦通人我法我之相。法空理中離此識相。故名無相。此明法出情若隨相識。是則求相非求法也。此明有情取者非真求法。自下一句離所緣境。法不可住者。□□□□為識。所託名之為住。真中離此故云不可。此明法出相。若住於法。是則住法非求法也。此明有相心者非真求法。自下兩句一對明離六識心王。前句離能緣心。後句離所緣境。法不可見聞覺智者。眼識隨生見。耳識隨生聞。鼻舌身三識隨生覺。意識隨生知。法空理中此六識相並非所□□□□□□□出情。若行見聞覺知。是則見聞覺□□□□□□□□□□者非真求法。自下一句明□□□□□□□□□□□□□識緣境四相遷變名曰□□□□□□□□□□□□□為此明法出相。若行有為是求有為不求法□□□□□□不名求法。上來總名教訖。

From here below, what is accomplished is clarified. Due to having cultivated wisdom and cultivated compassion previously, one consequently attains the accomplishment of the practice of the non-abiding path. Because of cultivating wisdom, one does not abide in saṃsāra; because of cultivating compassion, one does not abide in nirvāṇa. The text and meaning from here below are also all easy to understand, as explained in the commentary.

As for the "Inconceivable Chapter": in the sūtra it is also called "inconceivable" (bùkě-sīyì). Spoken generally, it is only a single meaning; spoken specifically, they are not without difference. As for the differentiated marks: based on the true looking toward the false, outside the true there is no false; since there is nothing to look toward, there is also no true mind confronting it, [both] words and thoughts being tranquil; hence it is called "acintya" (bù-sīyì). Based on the false looking toward the true, outside the false there is the true; the true outside the false cannot be reached by sentiments and conditions, hence it is called "inconceivable" (bùkě-sī); spoken words cannot attain to it, […] "unutterable" (bùkě-yì). The remaining meanings are explained extensively as in the commentary.

The previous Inquiring about the Illness Chapter clarified what is cultivated within the practice of being free from faults. The Inconceivable Chapter reveals what is accomplished within the practice of being free from faults; therefore this chapter comes next.

Within the text of this chapter, there are [three parts: first, Śāri]putra thinks of seats and Vimalakīrti's body manifests acintya virtue. Second, Śāri[putra] says […] below, on account of Śāriputra praising him, Vimalakīrti verbally proclaims acintya matters. Third, at that time the great […] Kāśyapa laments and sighs, and Vimalakīrti distinguishes and brings forth the acintya person.

Within the first section, the text further has [three parts: first,] clarifying the thought of seats. Second, Vimalakīrti's teaching and rebuking. Third, fetching seats for them.

"At that time Śāri[putra … saw that there were no] couches or seats, and had this thought: 'Where shall this multitude of bodhisattvas and great disciples sit?'": […] the first, Śāriputra's thinking, concludes. Thinking of seats arose on account of the room being previously emptied. If the room had not been emptied, this thought of […] the wondrous thrones of Dīpaṅkararāja would have had no cause to arrive.

Question: Why does Śāriputra frequently give rise to thoughts?
Answer: This sūtra trains the śrāvakas, causing them to loathe the small and rejoice in the great. Among the śrāvakas, Śāriputra is foremost in wisdom; clarifying that as soon as he thinks he is rebuked lets it be known that those śrāvakas do not measure up. When even Śāriputra's wisdom is rebuked and censured, it causes the others to regard themselves as base, narrow, and inferior, and to rejoice in seeking the Mahāyāna. Furthermore, Śāriputra is foremost in intelligence; if he does not think, that is all, but if he thinks, he must reveal the Dharma. For this reason he frequently gives rise to thoughts.

From here below, the second clarifies the teaching. In the text there are two parts: first, directly setting forth the words of teaching and rebuking; second, from "having spoken this" onward, clarifying the benefit of the exposition. […] setting forth […] rebuking. From "One who seeks the Dharma" onward, next clarifies the teaching. Rebuking and explaining: within the teaching, […] first, directly teaching; from "Therefore" onward, generally concluding.

Within the text directly teaching, there are further two parts: first, […] discarding marks; second, from "Why is this?" onward, clarifying that one with marks is not a true [seeker of the Dharma. Within the first part] there are further two parts: first, clarifying the discarding of defiled marks; next, [from] "Śāri[putra, seeking the Dharma is not like seeking …" and] "as if seeking" onward, clarifying the discarding of pure marks. Discussing its intention: the principle of the emptiness of dharmas […] can be attained, therefore one who seeks the Dharma must not seek it among those defilements and purities. Therefore […] understanding leaves no path for words.

Regarding the second, clarifying that one with marks is not a seeker of the Dharma, […] questioning: "What is the reason that one who seeks the Dharma equally discards the marks of defilement and purity?" Below there are ten phrases, […] explaining the ten phrases of the sūtra text, subsuming them into five pairs.
First there are two phrases, one pair clarifying that one who has pure marks is not a true seeker of the Dharma. Afterwards there are eight phrases, four pairs, clarifying that one who has defiled marks is not a true seeker of the Dharma.

Within the first pair of pure marks: the first phrase clarifies that dharmas [transcend] emotional generation, and one who has conceptual grasping is not a seeker of the Dharma; the second phrase clarifies that dharmas transcend marks, and one who has a mind [with marks] is not a true seeker of the Dharma. The previous phrase is leaving behind the pure mind; the subsequent phrase is leaving behind marks.

"The Dharma is free from frivolous conceptualization": this directly clarifies that dharmas transcend conceptual sentiment. The four truths are not real, [their] phenomena being identical to frivolous conceptualization. In the ultimate truth one is free from this, therefore it says "free from". If one says, "I shall comprehend suffering, abandon its accumulation, realize its cessation, and cultivate the path," this is frivolous conceptualization and not seeking the Dharma. This clarifies that one who grasps with conceptual sentiment is not a true seeker of the Dharma. This […] clarification of leaving behind the pure mind concludes.

The next phrase below clarifies leaving behind pure marks. "Śāriputra, the Dharma is called tranquil cessation": this clarifies that the Dharma is free from marks. Within the conventional truths, the production and cessation of the four truths are called im[permanent; the ultimate] truth is free from these four marks, hence it is called "tranquil cessation". If one practices production and cessation, this is seeking production and cessation, [not seeking the Dharma]. This clarifies that one with a mind of marks is not a true seeker of the Dharma. Among the four truths, […] truth is unconditioned and is called cessation. Practicing this production and cessation is not seeking [the Dharma. …] clarifying that one who has pure marks is not a true seeker of the Dharma.

From here below, eight phrases and four pairs [clarify that one with defiled marks is not a] true seeker of the Dharma. First there are four phrases and two pairs, clarifying leaving behind mental concomitants (caitta); next, [four phrases and two pairs, clarifying] leaving behind the primary mind.

Within the former, leaving behind mental concomitants, the first two phrases are one pair, clarifying leaving behind greed [… next, two phrases,] clarifying leaving behind the concomitant of discernment. Within leaving behind greed, the first phrase is being without the perceiving mind, and the subsequent phrase […]
"The Dharma is called free from defilement": a greedy mind that loves and attaches is called "defilement". In the ultimate truth, […] without this; this clarifies that the Dharma transcends sentiment. If one is defiled by dharmas up to nirvāṇa, this is defiled attachment and not seeking the Dharma. If one is defiled by dharmas, one is defiled by worldly truth dharmas; up to nirvāṇa, one is defiled by ultimate truth dharmas. This clarifies that one who grasps with conceptual sentiment is not a true seeker of the Dharma.

The next phrase below clarifies leaving behind the object of greed. "The Dharma is without taking and discarding": regarding the objects conditioned by greed, the good are taken and the bad must be discarded. In the ultimate truth one is free from this, hence there is no taking and discarding. This clarifies that the Dharma is free from marks. If one takes and discards dharmas, this is taking and discarding and not seeking the Dharma. This clarifies that one with a mind of marks is not a true seeker of the Dharma.

The next two phrases below clarify leaving behind the concomitant of discernment: the first phrase clarifies leaving behind the mind of discernment; the subsequent phrase leaves behind the object conditioned by discernment.
"The Dharma has no place of operation": the mind of discernment grasps […] place. In the ultimate truth there is no such thing, hence there is no place of operation. This clarifies that the Dharma transcends sentiment. If one operates [… a place of] operation, it is not seeking the Dharma. This clarifies that one who grasps with conceptual sentiment is not [a true seeker of the Dharma].

[…] the conditioned object: "The Dharma has no location": the [location] of sense spheres […] in the Dharma of thusness, one is free from this location; therefore it says [… no] location. This is attaching to a location and not seeking the Dharma. This clarifies that one who has a mind […]
[These four] phrases and two pairs clarifying leaving behind mental concomitants conclude.

From here below, four phrases and two pairs clarify leaving behind [the primary mind. First, two phrases] clarify leaving behind the seventh and eighth primary minds of consciousness; the latter two phrases and one pair clarify leaving behind [the sixth primary mind of consciousness. Within the first] pair, the previous phrase leaves behind the perceiving mind, and the subsequent phrase leaves behind the conditioned object.
"The Dharma is called […]
[ādā]na-consciousness: according to the old interpretation, it is the mark of the self of persons; in the contemporary new meaning, it encompasses the mark of the self of dharmas. The ālaya-consciousness also encompasses the marks of the self of persons and the self of dharmas. Within the principle of the emptiness of dharmas, one is free from these marks of consciousness; hence it is called "signless". This clarifies that the Dharma transcends sentiment; if one follows the consciousness of marks, this is seeking marks and not seeking the Dharma. This clarifies that one who grasps with conceptual sentiment is not a true seeker of the Dharma.

The next phrase below leaves behind the conditioned object. "The Dharma cannot be abided in": […] as consciousness, that which is relied upon is called "abiding". In the ultimate truth one is free from this, hence it says "cannot". This clarifies that the Dharma transcends marks. If one abides in dharmas, this is abiding in dharmas and not seeking the Dharma. This clarifies that one with a mind of marks is not a true seeker of the Dharma.

The next two phrases below are a pair clarifying leaving behind the sixth primary mind of consciousness. The former phrase leaves behind the perceiving mind; the latter phrase leaves behind the conditioned object.
"The Dharma cannot be seen, heard, sensed, or cognized": the eye consciousness gives rise to seeing accordingly; the ear consciousness gives rise to hearing accordingly; the three consciousnesses of nose, tongue, and body give rise to sensing accordingly; the mental consciousness gives rise to knowing accordingly. In the principle of the emptiness of dharmas, these marks of the six consciousnesses are altogether not that which […] transcends sentiment. If one practices seeing, hearing, sensing, and cognizing, this is seeing, hearing, sensing, [and cognizing, and not seeking the Dharma. This clarifies that one who grasps with conceptual sentiment] is not a true seeker of the Dharma.

The next phrase below clarifies […] the object conditioned by consciousness, the shifting transformation of the four marks being called [conditioned …] This clarifies that the Dharma transcends marks. If one practices the conditioned, this is seeking the conditioned and not seeking the Dharma […] is not called seeking the Dharma.
The above, collectively called the teaching, concludes.