維摩經疏 1.3

1.3

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.