維摩經疏卷第三．第六 3.37

3.37

入諸邪見不到彼岸下第四呵善吉於一切法不等。詰之成德。文中十一句。義分為三。初有一句明同外道。次有五句明同凡夫。後有五句明同眾魔。總呵意者何容得邪正得八難見染淨定不等取田偏見罪福出魔界與魔異悲眾生著三寶乃至第十一證涅槃現見汝今不能入邪住八難同煩惱等無諍乃至不取滅以是義故知汝未得空無諍三昧以未知故返教呵也。初入諸邪見不到彼岸者。第一明同外道。破善吉取邪正相。彼岸者涅槃也。小乘以邪見為邪彼岸為正。故捨此邪見還到彼岸。大乘之士知邪見性空。云何出離涅槃寂滅。云何可到。邪見彼岸本性不殊。何為捨邪而忻彼岸。是以入邪見不到彼岸也。又云。為化眾生入諸邪見不住涅槃不到彼岸也。自下第二明同凡夫文中有五。一破得八難相。二破取垢淨相。三破定心不等。四破福田相。五破取罪福相。住於八難不得無難者。第一破取八難相。夫見難為難者必捨難而求無難。若能不以難為難者。能住於難。不以為難故不得於無難。難性自空。云何捨之方得無難也。又云。為化處之住於八難。不著菩提不住無難也。同於煩惱離清淨法者。第二破取垢淨相。為化眾生同於煩惱。不著涅槃離清淨法也。或云。二乘除垢取淨。淨還成染。菩薩悟垢非垢。即染常淨。是以同於煩惱離清淨也。故思益經云。或垢法說淨淨法說垢。云何淨法說垢。貪著淨法故。云何垢法說淨。不見垢法故。又下經云。見垢實性則無淨相。汝得無諍三昧眾生亦得者。第三破定心不等也。無諍有二。一事無諍。以三昧力將護眾生令不起諍故。善吉云。若有嫌我坐者我即為立。若嫌我在此我即遠去。終無起諍。二理無諍。真如法性無違無諍。由證理故方得事無諍。善吉。與群生空理平等。何為善吉獨得無諍而群生不得乎。此明性本平等。故云眾生亦得也。其施汝者不名福田者。第四破取福相。善吉意謂。我受彼施令彼得大福故名福。凡夫受施不能令彼獲大福非福田也。汝及凡夫平等一空。云何凡夫非福田。汝是福田耶。又觀彼我不殊誰是福者誰為田者。故云其施汝者不名福田也。遠云。無善益他世間罪人供之無福。供汝似彼。不生功德。名非福田耳。諺云。約相行施。不名平等福田也。供養汝墮三惡者。第五破見罪福相。滿云。五逆之損供養之益。善吉意謂。供養我者得生天中。今返呵。彼性空平等善惡無二。云何修善獨得生天作罪入於惡道。若五逆而可墮。供養亦應墮。供養既不墮。五逆亦不墮。可謂善惡兩亡性空平等。故下經云。若達罪性則與福無異。諺云。取相供養雖得少福終必墮惡道也。自下第三明同眾魔文中五句。一破出魔界。二破與魔異。三破悲眾生。四破著三寶。五破得涅槃。前中與魔作侶者。第一破出魔界。善吉意謂。我是聖人出於魔界。今返令同魔業。眾魔者諸魔王也。魔專懷亂。作業同魔名共。一手如似世人作物相似云是一手作也。魔能嬈亂。名之為勞。與彼為伴。名作勞侶。魔性自空。何須捨離而不共住。既得正見。不異於魔所作勞侶也。汝與眾魔塵勞無異者。第二破與魔異。既為其侶。安得有異。汝與眾魔平等一空無有二相。豈不等也。於一切眾生有怨心者。第三破悲眾生。魔能害其惠命。怨中之甚也。起彼慈心。是親友義。眾生性空。怨親平等。汝於等中既能起慈。何不為怨也。又小乘人但說生空。教化眾生。損他大乘。法身惠命名之為怨也。謗佛毀法不入眾者。第四破著三寶。汝須菩提但能讀佛法僧樂在眾數。便是取三寶相。汝於等中既能讀嘆。何不謗也。既不能謗。何能讚嘆也。故無行經云。聞讚佛音聲即喜。聞毀呰佛音聲即礙。當知是人不學佛法。經云。外道音聲與佛音聲等。又云。佛說及邪說是皆無分別。又云。謗佛毀法者以其善吉不達三寶如虛空故取相讚嘆違於真體。正是謗佛毀法不入僧數人也。故般若經云。若以色見我以音聲求我。是人行邪道。不能見如來。終不得滅度者。第五破證涅槃相。眾生性空無滅度者。而今取涅槃。但是有相不得涅槃。故佛藏經云。若人見涅槃決定相者。當知是人名為外道惡邪見者。又下經云。一切眾生即涅槃相。不復更滅。只為眾生性空即是涅槃。豈以涅槃更證涅槃乎。又云。善吉心狹劣故不能證大涅槃。故不得滅度。又云。善吉意謂。我是聖人證得涅槃。今返呵彼。平等空中離得不得若汝得者亦應不得既無不得亦無得者乃可取食者結勸也。汝今若能亡前得失虛通其壞者。即是福田。乃可取食。何者夫捨惡從善人之常情。然即是非經心。猶未兌於累。是以等觀之者。以存善為患故捨善以求宗。以捨惡為累故即惡而返本。然即惡有亡累之功。善有無染之勳。故知同善未為得。同惡未為失。淨名言意似若此乎。

"Entering into all false views and not reaching the other shore" and so forth is the fourth [part], which rebukes Subhūti for not being equal toward all dharmas, reproving him so as to bring his virtues to completion. Within the text there are eleven clauses, the meaning of which is divided into three parts: first, one clause explains being identical with non-Buddhists; next, five clauses explain being identical with ordinary persons; finally, five clauses explain being identical with the hosts of Māras. The overall intent of the rebuke is: How can you maintain [distinctions of] false and right, maintain the eight difficulties, see defilement and purity, have inequality in meditative minds, grasp at [the field of] merit, hold biased views of sin and blessing, emerge from Māra's realm, differentiate yourself from Māras, feel pity for sentient beings, be attached to the Three Jewels, and up to the eleventh, realize nirvāṇa? It is now apparent that you cannot enter false [views], abide in the eight difficulties, identify with afflictions, equalize the non-contentious, and up to not grasping cessation. By this reasoning, it is known that you have not yet attained the empty, non-contentious samādhi; because you do not yet know it, he in turn instructs and rebukes you. First, "Entering into all false views and not reaching the other shore" is the first [clause], explaining being identical with non-Buddhists, shattering Subhūti's grasping at the characteristics of false and right. "The other shore" is nirvāṇa. The Hīnayāna takes false views to be wrong and the other shore to be right; thus it abandons these false views and returns to reach the other shore. A practitioner of the Mahāyāna knows that the nature of false views is empty: how could there be transcendence? Nirvāṇa is calm extinction: how could it be reached? The original nature of false views and the other shore are not different: why abandon the false and delight in the other shore? Therefore, one enters false views and does not reach the other shore. It is also said: to convert sentient beings, one enters all false views, does not abide in nirvāṇa, and does not reach the other shore. From here on, the second part explains being identical with ordinary persons, within which there are five points: first, shattering the characteristic of escaping the eight difficulties; second, shattering the characteristic of grasping at defilement and purity; third, shattering inequality in the meditative mind; fourth, shattering the characteristic of the field of merit; fifth, shattering the characteristic of grasping at sin and blessing. "Abiding in the eight difficulties and not attaining the absence of difficulties" is the first, shattering the grasping at the characteristics of the eight difficulties. Whoever sees difficulties as difficulties will inevitably abandon difficulties and seek the absence of difficulties. If one can avoid treating difficulties as difficulties, one can abide in difficulties; because one does not consider them difficulties, one does not attain the absence of difficulties. The nature of difficulties is inherently empty: how could one abandon them and only then attain the absence of difficulties? It is also said: to transform [others], one dwells among them and abides in the eight difficulties, not being attached to bodhi and not abiding in the absence of difficulties. "Being identical with afflictions and departing from pure dharmas" is the second, shattering the grasping at the characteristics of defilement and purity. To convert sentient beings, one identifies with afflictions; not being attached to nirvāṇa, one departs from pure dharmas. Alternatively, it is said: the two vehicles eliminate defilement and grasp purity, so that purity turns back into defilement; a bodhisattva realizes that defilement is non-defilement, so that what is defiled is ever pure; therefore one identifies with afflictions and departs from purity. Thus the Viśeṣacintā-brahma-paripṛcchā Sūtra states: "Sometimes defiled dharmas are spoken of as pure, and pure dharmas are spoken of as defiled. Why are pure dharmas spoken of as defiled? Because one is greedily attached to pure dharmas. Why are defiled dharmas spoken of as pure? Because one does not see defiled dharmas." Furthermore, a later passage of the [Vimalakīrti] sūtra says: "If one sees the true nature of defilement, there are no characteristics of purity." "You attain the non-contentious samādhi, and sentient beings also attain it" is the third, shattering inequality in the meditative mind. Non-contention is twofold: first, phenomenal non-contention: using the power of samādhi to safeguard sentient beings so that contention does not arise. Subhūti said: "If someone dislikes my sitting, I will immediately stand for them; if they dislike my being here, I will immediately depart far away. Never will I give rise to contention." Second, principle non-contention: the dharmatā of tathatā is without opposition and without contention. Only by realizing the principle can one attain phenomenal non-contention. Subhūti and all living beings are equal in the principle of emptiness: why should Subhūti alone attain non-contention while living beings do not? This clarifies that their nature is originally equal; hence it is said, "sentient beings also attain it." "Those who give to you are not called fields of merit" is the fourth, shattering the grasping at the characteristics of merit. Subhūti's view was: "When I receive their gifts, I cause them to attain great merit; therefore I am called a [field of] merit; when ordinary persons receive gifts, they cannot cause them to obtain great merit and are not fields of merit." You and ordinary persons are equal in single emptiness: how could ordinary persons not be fields of merit, while you are a field of merit? Furthermore, contemplating that other and self are not different, who is the one of merit, and who is the field? Hence it is said: "Those who give to you are not called fields of merit." Yuán said: "Those who lack goodness to benefit others are worldly sinners; making offerings to them brings no merit. Making offerings to you resembles that; it generates no virtue, hence it is called not a field of merit." The proverb says: "Giving based on characteristics is not called an equal field of merit." "Those who make offerings to you falling into the three evil destinies" is the fifth, shattering the view of the characteristics of sin and blessing. Mǎn said: "The harm of the five heinous sins versus the benefit of making offerings." Subhūti thought that those who made offerings to him would attain birth in the heavens; now he is rebuked in reverse: "That nature is empty and equal, and good and evil are not two: how could practicing good alone lead to birth in heaven, while committing sins leads into the evil paths? If the five heinous sins can cause falling [into evil paths], making offerings should also cause falling. Since making offerings does not cause falling, the five heinous sins also do not cause falling. This can be called both good and evil being obliterated, their nature being empty and equal." Thus a later passage of the sūtra states: "If one penetrates the nature of sin, it is not different from blessing." The proverb says: "Making offerings while grasping at characteristics, though one may gain a little merit, will ultimately lead to falling into the evil paths." From here on, the third part explains being identical with the hosts of Māras, in five clauses: first, shattering emerging from Māra's realm; second, shattering being different from Māras; third, shattering pitying sentient beings; fourth, shattering attachment to the Three Jewels; fifth, shattering attaining nirvāṇa. Within the former, "Becoming a companion to Māra" is the first, shattering emerging from Māra's realm. Subhūti thought: "I am a noble one who has emerged from Māra's realm." Now he is conversely made to share in Māra's deeds. "Hosts of Māras" refers to the various Māra kings. Māra is entirely preoccupied with disorder; performing deeds identical to Māra's is called "sharing one hand"—just as worldly people say of making things similarly that they were "made by a single hand." Māra can disturb and harass, which is called toil; being a partner to him is called becoming a toiling companion. The nature of Māra is inherently empty: why need one abandon him and not dwell together? Once one has attained right view, one is not different from a companion in the toil wrought by Māra. "You being not different from the defilements and toils of the hosts of Māras" is the second, shattering being different from Māras. Since you are his companion, how could you be different? You and the hosts of Māras are equal in single emptiness, without two characteristics: how could you not be equal? "Bearing a mind of enmity toward all sentient beings" is the third, shattering pitying sentient beings. Māra can harm their life of wisdom, which is the worst of enmities. Giving rise to that mind of loving-kindness is the meaning of a friend. Sentient beings are empty in nature; enemies and friends are equal. Since you can give rise to loving-kindness within equality, why not act as an enemy? Furthermore, Hīnayāna practitioners merely speak of the emptiness of persons to teach and transform sentient beings, thereby harming the dharmakāya and wisdom-life of the Mahāyāna in others, which is termed enmity. "Slandering the Buddha, disparaging the Dharma, and not entering the Saṅgha" is the fourth, shattering attachment to the Three Jewels. You, Subhūti, are only able to recite [praises of] the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha and delight in being counted among the assembly, which is precisely grasping at the characteristics of the Three Jewels. Since within equality you can praise them, why not slander them? Since you cannot slander them, how can you praise them? Thus the Wuxing Jing states: "Hearing the sound of praising the Buddha, one rejoices; hearing the sound of disparaging the Buddha, one is obstructed. One should know that this person does not study the Buddha's teaching." The sūtra says: "The sounds of non-Buddhists and the sound of the Buddha are equal." It also says: "What the Buddha speaks and false speech are both without distinction." It also says: "Slandering the Buddha and disparaging the Dharma occurs because Subhūti does not penetrate that the Three Jewels are like empty space; thus grasping at characteristics to praise them opposes the true essence, making him precisely a person who slanders the Buddha, disparages the Dharma, and does not enter the ranks of the Saṅgha." Thus the Prajñā Sūtra says: "If one sees me by form or seeks me by sound, this person walks a false path and cannot see the Tathāgata." "Ultimately not attaining extinction" is the fifth, shattering the characteristic of realizing nirvāṇa. Sentient beings are empty in nature, with none who attain extinction; yet now you grasp at nirvāṇa, which is merely possessing characteristics, and you do not attain nirvāṇa. Thus the Buddhapiṭaka-sūtra says: "If a person sees a definitive characteristic of nirvāṇa, you should know that this person is called a non-Buddhist with evil false views." Furthermore, a later passage of the [Vimalakīrti] sūtra says: "All sentient beings are precisely the characteristic of nirvāṇa, not to be extinguished again." It is simply because the empty nature of sentient beings is itself nirvāṇa; how could one use nirvāṇa to further realize nirvāṇa? It is also said: because Subhūti's mind was narrow and inferior, he could not realize the great nirvāṇa; hence he does not attain extinction. It is also said: Subhūti thought, "I am a noble one who has realized nirvāṇa." Now he conversely rebukes him: within equal emptiness, one is free from attainment and non-attainment; if you attained it, you should also not attain it; since there is no non-attainment, there is also no attainment. "Only then may you take food" concludes the exhortation. If you can now eliminate the preceding [dualisms of] gain and loss and vacantly penetrate their dismantling, you will be a field of merit, and only then may you take food. Why so? Abandoning evil and following good is common human inclination. Yet when right and wrong occupy the mind, one is not yet free from encumbrances. Therefore, one who views them equally regards preserving good as an affliction and so abandons good to seek the fundamental; regarding abandoning evil as an encumbrance, one confronts evil and returns to the source. Thus evil has the efficacy of eradicating encumbrances, and good has the merit of non-defilement. Therefore, one knows that agreeing with good is not yet an attainment, and agreeing with evil is not yet a loss. Vimalakīrti's intended meaning seems to be like this.