[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) › [維摩經疏卷第三．第六](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2772) › 3.32 # 維摩經疏卷第三．第六 3.32 維摩經疏卷第三．第六 3.32 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.32](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2772.3.32) 佛告須菩提者。此云空生。亦名善吉。故福德經云。舍衛城中有長者名拘留。父為無子故祠天求子。空聲應言。汝福得多無堪來者。有天王命終應生君家。後便誕身。其人初生舍宅皆空。父母怪之以問相師。相師告云。現空唯善表大。解空第一故曰空生。後長大請父延佛。設食即隨佛還祇洹精舍作沙門。思念人物俱空獲阿羅漢果得無諍三昧。未得大乘究竟平等大空三昧。故今被呵。若就行辯前。大迦葉以無平等大悲捨其大乘樂於小法。不能貧富平等。𨷂助成之行。所以捨富從貧乞。今須菩提𨷂平等空智。欲捨小法別求大乘。不能以富等貧。謬見邪正遂捨於貧而從富乞。此並未會不二之真故被呵也。文四同前第三釋中。初徵後釋。釋中有二。一舉昔日被呵之事。二時維摩下辯其得失教呵之相。前中入舍從乞食者。須菩提自念。若從貧乞恐成惱亂令諸眾生得嫌嫉之罪。故須捨貧唯從富乞。故今須入維摩詰舍。 > "The Buddha told Subhūti": this \[name\] is translated as "Born of Emptiness" (Kōngshēng), and also named "Good Auspice" (Śubhūti / Shànjí). Thus the Fude jing says: in the city of Śrāvastī there was an elder named Kuryū; because the father had no son, he made offerings to heaven to seek a son. A voice from the empty sky answered, saying: "Your merit is very great, and none is worthy to come; there is a heavenly king whose life is ending, who should be born in your house." Later he was born. When that person was first born, the house was entirely empty; the parents, finding it strange, asked a diviner. The diviner told them: "Manifesting emptiness is only auspicious, signifying greatness; he will be foremost in understanding emptiness, hence he is called 'Born of Emptiness'." Later, having grown up, he requested his father to invite the Buddha and provide a meal; he then followed the Buddha back to the Jetavana Vihāra to become a śramaṇa. Contemplating that both persons and things are empty, he attained the fruit of an arhat and attained the samādhi of non-contention (araṇā-samādhi). Not yet having attained the Mahāyāna's ultimate, equal, great-emptiness samādhi, he is now reprimanded. If we distinguish this in terms of their practices: previously, Mahākāśyapa, lacking equal great compassion, abandoned the Mahāyāna and took delight in the lesser Dharma; unable to treat the poor and the rich equally, he lacked the practice of auxiliary perfection, and therefore abandoned the rich to beg from the poor. Now, Subhūti lacks equal wisdom of emptiness; wishing to abandon the lesser Dharma and separately seek the Mahāyāna, he cannot equate the rich with the poor; mistakenly seeing wrong and right, he consequently abandoned the poor to beg from the rich. Because neither of them has yet converged with the truth of non-duality, they are both reprimanded. The text has four parts as before. In the third explanation, it first raises \[the matter\] and then explains it. Within the explanation there are two parts: first, it cites the previous event of being reprimanded; second, from "At that time, Vimalakīrti..." downward, it distinguishes its merits and faults, and the manner of instruction and reprimand. In the former part, "entering his house and begging food from him": Subhūti thought to himself: "If I beg from the poor, I fear causing disturbance and bringing upon sentient beings the fault of resentment and jealousy; therefore I must abandon the poor and beg only from the rich." Hence he now had to enter Vimalakīrti's house. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.31](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2772.3.31) - [Next: 3.33](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2772.3.33) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2772.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2772~en-mt.3.32) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2772.3.32](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2772.3.32) · Pramāṇa