維摩經疏卷第三．第六 3.38

3.38

時我世尊聞此忙然不知以何答便置鉢欲出其舍者。第二申巳卑屈彰彼難敵。於中有二。一障己屈。二維摩言下淨名就喻以理重教。前中忙然者。內心不明了也。不識是何言不知以何答者。言即返於經理即合於義。返於經故自申不識是何言。合於義故不知以何答。形下有餘。望上不足。進退失據。思對莫由。所以置鉢欲出其舍。置者捨也。第二維摩教中初法次喻後合。法中取鉢勿懼者。以須菩提因呵增愧無答而棄鉢便有著言之失故。今導之令即言而會旨。故云取鉢勿懼也。喻中如來所作化人若是事詰寧有懼不者。化人雖聞無心。於體欲令善吉悟己如化。何有懼也。合喻中有二。初合後釋。一切法如幻化。既無懼。汝亦如幻。何有懼也。所以者何。下別釋有五句。初句一切言說不離是相。明己難辭同幻化相。二明智者知化不實故無所懼也。三何以故下釋前不著不懼所以。由文字體空故云性離。四會文即真解脫。夫名出於不足。足則無名。故無有文字即真解脫也。五類諸法皆解脫相推類。次解內外皆空故無所妄。夫名出於法。法出於名。名既解脫故。諸法自然解脫也。教益可知。故我不堪下結不堪也。

"Then, Bhagavat, hearing this, I was bewildered, not knowing how to reply; so I set down the bowl and wished to leave his house" is the second [major section], expressing his own humiliation to highlight the opponent's insurmountability. Herein there are two parts: first, displaying his own humiliation; second, from "Vimalakīrti said" downward, Vimalakīrti uses analogies to re-instruct him based on principle. In the former part, "bewildered" means that the inner mind was not clear. In "I did not recognize what words these were, nor did I know how to reply," the words were contrary to the sūtras, while the principle was in accord with the doctrine. Because they were contrary to the sūtras, he expressed for himself that he did not recognize what words these were; because they were in accord with the doctrine, he did not know how to reply. Measured against what was below him, he had a surplus; gazing toward what was above, he fell short. Moving forward or backward, he lost his footing, with no way to formulate a response. Therefore, he set down the bowl and wished to leave his house. "Set down" means to abandon. In the second part, Vimalakīrti's instruction, first is the doctrine, next the analogy, and finally the application. In the doctrine, "Take the bowl and have no fear": because Subhūti's shame increased due to the rebuke, and having no reply he abandoned the bowl, he fell into the error of clinging to words; now [Vimalakīrti] guides him to directly encounter the intent through the words; hence he says, "Take the bowl and have no fear." In the analogy, "If an illusory person created by the Tathāgata were questioned about such matters, would he have fear or not?": although an illusory person hears, he has no mind; essentially, he wishes to make Subhūti realize that he himself is like an illusion—how could there be any fear? In applying the analogy, there are two parts: first the application, then the explanation. All dharmas are like phantoms and illusions; since they have no fear, you too are like an illusion—how could you have fear? "Why is this?" Below, the separate explanation has five clauses: the first clause, "all speech does not depart from this characteristic," explains that his own difficult words are identical to the characteristics of phantasms and illusions. Second, it explains that the wise know illusions to be unreal, and therefore have no fear. Third, from "why is this?" downward, it explains the preceding reason for not clinging and not fearing: because the essence of letters is empty, it says "their nature is detached." Fourth, it integrates the words with true liberation: names arise from deficiency; when there is sufficiency, there are no names; hence the absence of letters is true liberation. Fifth, it analogizes that all dharmas are characteristics of liberation: by deduction, it next explains that internal and external are both empty, so there is no delusion. Names arise from dharmas, and dharmas arise from names; since names are already liberated, all dharmas are naturally liberated. The benefit of the teaching can be known. "Therefore I am not competent" downward concludes his lack of competence.