維摩經疏 1.8

1.8

The two questions below reveal that upon which Vimalakīrti's great compassion relies: because compassion is accomplished relying on emptiness, he asks about the room's emptiness; because compassion arises in accordance with existence, he asks about the lack of attendants. Alternatively, the three questions above purely clarify skillful means, whereas the two questions below clarify both real wisdom and skillful means—asking about the room's emptiness reveals real wisdom, while the lack of attendants reveals skillful means. In the text, it first clarifies Mañjuśrī's inquiry, and second, Vimalakīrti's answer. Mañjuśrī saying, 'Householder, why is this room empty and without attendants?' is the question. 'Why is it empty?' is one question, inquiring about the room's emptiness; 'Why are there no attendants?' is two questions, inquiring about the lack of attendants. Below, Vimalakīrti answers […], first answering the room's emptiness and later answering the lack of attendants. Vimalakīrti says, 'The Buddha-lands of the various Buddhas are also all empty'—this is the direct answer. All the Buddha-lands of the ten directions are entirely empty; this room of mine is of the same kind as those lands, and is therefore also empty. Below, Mañjuśrī advances a question and Vimalakīrti answers again. Also asking, 'With what is it empty?' is Mañjuśrī advancing his question. Emptiness is of two kinds: first, the emptiness of principle; second, the emptiness of phenomena. The emptiness of principle means that the essential substance of the principle of the dharmadhātu and tathatā is itself empty. The emptiness of phenomena means removing what exists to produce emptiness amidst phenomena. He asks, 'Householder, is the room's emptiness the emptiness of principle, or the emptiness of phenomena?'; therefore, he says, 'With what is it empty?' Below, Vimalakīrti answers: 'Empty with emptiness.' 'My room's present emptiness is the emptiness of principle. The substance of the principle is not one, yet pervades all places; therefore, it is said to be "empty with emptiness." Furthermore, the emptiness of principle empties out the emptiness of phenomena; therefore, it is said to be "empty with emptiness." Moreover, within the emptiness of principle there are two kinds: first, the emptiness of persons; second, the emptiness of dharmas. Because there are two kinds of emptiness, it is said to be "empty with emptiness." Furthermore, within principle, the substance of emptiness is itself unobtainable; emptiness is also empty, therefore it is said to be "empty with emptiness."'