[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [維摩經疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2771) › 1.3 # 維摩經疏 1.3 維摩經疏 1.3 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2771.1.3) 自下文殊後述。述中有二。先正述所以下釋。正述之中前維摩但言來。今文殊更帖去。何故如此所望不同。維摩望文殊但見文殊來向我家。故唯說來。文殊望維摩即來向維摩家。二即背彼菴羅去故兼說去也。文殊師利言如是居士。若來已更不來。若去已更不去。述上來也。前者維摩先說不來後說來。今者文殊先說來後說不來。何意如此。一解言。此乃隨其語便即說何定所以。第二義者。維摩是俗文殊是道。維摩俗故顯即真以明俗。所以先說不來後說來。文殊道故欲明攝俗以歸真。所以先說來後說不來。又復維摩先言不來後明來欲明不來來。文殊先言來後不來欲明來不來。故知來與不來並皆無相。去亦如是。此中釋者不異前四門也。自下釋。所以者何徵問。我見文殊背彼菴羅去來向維摩家。所以言來不來去不去□何。自下對問解釋。來者無所從來。去者無所至。前際空故來無所從。後際空故去無所至。又菴羅薗空故來無所從。維摩室空故去無所至。此則述上來訖。所可見者更不可見。此述上見。夫論見者。如眼見色要具五緣。一根不壞。二識不辭。三有可見之境。四無隔障。五起覺觀。具此五緣方能見色。五緣闕一色不可見。今者嘖之。此見為在何緣中。若隨在一緣中。應不藉餘四。若五緣各非見和合方能見者。五盲不見色和合應得見。若使五中各有見。豈可剎那得生五自性。故知見者更不見者更不可見。餘義如上。上來問答拂遣來去相訖。 > From here down, Mañjuśrī relates in response afterward. Within his relating there are two parts: first, directly relating; below 'the reason why', explaining. Within the direct relating: previously, Vimalakīrti only spoke of coming; now, Mañjuśrī additionally attaches going. Why is it like this? Because their perspectives differ. Vimalakīrti, looking toward Mañjuśrī, only sees Mañjuśrī coming toward his house, hence he speaks only of coming. Mañjuśrī, looking toward Vimalakīrti, comes toward Vimalakīrti's house on the one hand, and on the other leaves the Āmrapālī \[grove\] behind, hence he also speaks of going. 'Mañjuśrī said, "So it is, householder. If one has already come, one does not come again; if one has already gone, one does not go again"': this responds to the above. Previously, Vimalakīrti first spoke of non-coming and later spoke of coming; now, Mañjuśrī first speaks of coming and later speaks of non-coming. What is the intention behind this? One explanation says: this merely follows the ease of speech and has no fixed reason. A second meaning is: Vimalakīrti represents the secular, while Mañjuśrī represents the path. Because Vimalakīrti represents the secular, he reveals identity with the real to elucidate the secular; therefore he first speaks of non-coming and later speaks of coming. Because Mañjuśrī represents the path, he wishes to explain subsuming the secular to return to the real; therefore he first speaks of coming and later speaks of non-coming. Furthermore, Vimalakīrti first speaks of non-coming and later clarifies coming because he wishes to elucidate the coming of non-coming; Mañjuśrī first speaks of coming and later of non-coming because he wishes to elucidate the non-coming of coming. Therefore know that coming and non-coming are both signless; going is also like this. The explanation here does not differ from the previous four gates. From here down is the explanation: 'Why is this?' is an inquiry. I see Mañjuśrī leaving the Āmrapālī \[grove\] behind and coming toward Vimalakīrti's house; for what reason is it said 'coming is non-coming and going is non-going'? From here down, he explains in response to the inquiry: 'One who comes comes from nowhere; one who goes goes nowhere.' Because the prior limit is empty, coming has no origin; because the subsequent limit is empty, going has no destination. Furthermore, because the Āmrapālī grove is empty, coming has no origin; because Vimalakīrti's room is empty, going has no destination. This concludes relating the above coming. 'What can be seen cannot be seen again': this relates the seeing above. Now regarding seeing: for the eye to see forms, it must possess five conditions: 1. The sense organ is not impaired; 2. Consciousness is not absent; 3. There is an object that can be seen; 4. There is no obstruction; 5. Initial and sustained application arise. Only when possessing these five conditions can one see forms; if a single condition of the five is lacking, forms cannot be seen. Now investigating this: in which condition does this seeing abide? If it is present in any single condition, it should not rely on the other four. If the five conditions each lack seeing and only when combined are they able to see, then five blind people, who do not see form, should be able to see when combined. If each of the five possesses seeing, how could five self-natures arise in a single instant? Therefore know that what is seen cannot be seen again. The remaining meanings are as above. This concludes the question and answer clearing away the marks of coming and going. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2771.1.2) - [Next: 1.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2771.1.4) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2771.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2771~en-mt.1.3) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (3) - [注維摩詰經](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1775.5.43) — Classical Chinese - [淨名經集解關中疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2777.2.16) — Classical Chinese - [維摩詰所說經](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.vimalakirtinirdesa*zh-kumarajiva.2.9) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2771.1.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2771.1.3) · Pramāṇa