維摩經疏卷第三．第六 3.40

3.40

文四同前。第三先徵後釋。釋中即有四。一舉昔日被呵之事。二出教呵相。三入三昧下明其化巧。四我念下自申卑屈。初中憶念我昔被呵時也。在一樹下者。所呵處此近毘耶離城有園林。林中有水名曰獼猴池。園有僧房。是毘耶離菴羅之側也。為諸新學比丘說法者明所呵事。以說小乘不應大機所以被呵。時維摩詰來謂我言等者。第二出教呵辭。為益新學比丘令捨小求大所以教之。文中有四。一呵不稱欲。二汝不能知下呵不知根。三欲行下重呵不稱欲。四久發下重呵不知根。前中四句。一教。二呵。三重教。四重呵。初入定觀此人心然後說法者。心是樂欲之心。入定者二乘之人。心有限礙故。在定即見。出定不見。設使在定利聲聞見眾生根熟極八萬劫。鈍根定淺少不足言。故今教之。先當入定知人心欲。然後說法也。菩薩定者真心為體。性常寂照未曾不知。不同二乘出入異也。第二呵中。小法如穢食事等稊稗。大心如甘露事同寶器。第三重教。勸知心念。第四重呵。琉璃喻大心。此是大毘琉璃照見萬像。西國所有不同此處凡琉璃也。水精喻小乘法也。第二不知根中文有三句。初句呵不知根。第二句呵其授小。第三句明授小之損。為大說小。恐壞大心。故勿傷也。第三重呵欲中。約喻以呵。於中三句。比丘求大名欲行大道。小法局狹猶如小逕。求大教小理所不應。故云莫示小逕。無以大海內於牛跡者。比丘大心如似大海。小法微淺事同牛跡。安心住法目之為內。此亦不應故云無。以日光等彼螢火者。比丘大心猶如日光。二乘小法事同螢火。將大同小理所不應。故稱無以也。若依無垢稱云。更有兩句。無以妙高山王等于芥子。又以大師子吼同野干鳴。第四重呵根中文有三句。初明比丘久發大心中忘此意。未證法前進退不恒故也。二如何小乘法下呵彼說小有多過失。三我觀小乘下呵不知根。智慧微淺猶如盲人。明智體劣。二乘唯得生空智未悟法空。所以智慧微淺。又不知眾生根機。故云淺也。不能分別諸根利鈍。智用狹也。此明羅漢於大乘法尚似盲人。況我昏昧凡夫妄生分別者哉。問。勝鬘經云。凡夫如生盲不見眾色。聲聞如七日嬰兒不見日輪。如何今說聲聞過生盲也。答。若見諦理凡夫不能故。彼經說猶如盲人聲聞分得故。說如七日嬰兒不見日輪。今說聲聞不識根性故過生盲。非見諦理也。又云。理實二乘分知眾生根性。但為抑挫聲聞故言如盲。故上經云。富樓那先當入定觀此人心然後說法。時維摩詰即入三昧等者。此下第三彰其巧化令悟大捨小。文有六句。一淨名默入三昧。由入三昧令此比丘自識宿命。曾於過去佛所種善發心。依地持論。宿命有五。一自知宿命。二知他。三令他知。四令他自知。五自他展轉互知宿命。今所論者即是第四令他自知宿命也。問。大乘宗過去無法。比丘如何得知。答。由得宿命智觀現在賴耶識中過去世種知過去事也。或可。緣心上影像相得知過去事也。三即時豁然下還得本心。由維摩以宿命通力加彼比丘得見過去所習善根還得本大乘心也。四於是下荷恩致敬得益既深。亡其形相故謂禮也。五因得發心更為說法。六由為說法彼於菩提不復退轉。此諸比丘位在十信。由聞今說進入十住。第七住中住不退也。永不退作二乘故非信不退。久以信故亦非證行二種不退。以初學故。問。五種菩提中此等比丘證何菩提。答。五中但證得伏心菩提。久已信故非發心也。創初證得非明心菩提等三也。我念聲聞不觀人根者。此第四自申卑屈。我念聲聞不觀人根不應說法也。是故已下結不堪也。

The four structural divisions of the text are the same as before. In the third, there is first the question and then the explanation. In the explanation there are four parts: first, citing the past incident of being rebuked; second, bringing forth the manner of instruction and rebuke; third, from "entering samādhi" onwards, clarifying his skillful teaching; fourth, from "I recall" onwards, expressing his own humility and inadequacy. In the first part: recalling the time when I was rebuked in the past. "Under a tree": the place where he was rebuked was near the city of Vaiśālī, where there was a park and forest. In the forest there was a body of water called the Monkey Pool. In the park there were monastic dwellings; this was beside the Āmrapālī [grove] of Vaiśālī. "Teaching the Dharma to newly ordained monks": clarifies the matter for which he was rebuked. Because he taught the Hīnayāna, which did not accord with their Mahāyāna capacity, he was rebuked. "At that time Vimalakīrti came and said to me, etc.": second, bringing forth the words of instruction and rebuke. To benefit the newly ordained monks and cause them to renounce the Hīnayāna and seek the Mahāyāna, he instructed him. In the text there are four parts: first, rebuking him for not according with their desires; second, from "You cannot know" onwards, rebuking him for not knowing their capacities; third, from "Wishing to walk" onwards, re-rebuking him for not according with their desires; fourth, from "Having long ago generated" onwards, re-rebuking him for not knowing their capacities. In the first part there are four phrases: first, instructing; second, rebuking; third, re-instructing; fourth, re-rebuking. First, "Enter samādhi to examine this person's mind, and then speak the Dharma": "mind" refers to the mind of inclination and desire. "Entering samādhi": practitioners of the two vehicles have limited minds; therefore, when in samādhi they see, but when emerging from samādhi they do not see. Even when in samādhi, a sharp-rooted śrāvaka sees the maturation of sentient beings' capacities at most up to eighty thousand kalpas; for dull-rooted ones, their samādhi is shallow and little, not worth mentioning. Therefore, he now instructs him: one should first enter samādhi to know the person's mental desires, and only then speak the Dharma. As for the samādhi of a bodhisattva, its essence is the true mind; its nature is constantly quiescent and illuminating, never failing to know, unlike the difference between entering and emerging in the two vehicles. In the second, the rebuke: the lesser Dharma is like unclean food, its matter equivalent to weeds and tares; the great aspiration is like ambrosia, its matter comparable to a precious vessel. In the third, the re-instruction: urging him to know the mental thoughts. In the fourth, the re-rebuke: lapis lazuli illustrates the great aspiration; this is great vaiḍūrya illuminating and seeing myriad forms, something found in the Western regions, unlike ordinary lapis lazuli in this land. Crystal illustrates the Hīnayāna Dharma. In the second part, on not knowing capacities, the text has three phrases: the first phrase rebukes his ignorance of capacities; the second phrase rebukes his imparting the small; the third phrase clarifies the harm of imparting the small. Preaching the small to the great risks damaging the great aspiration; hence, "do not wound them." In the third part, re-rebuking regarding desires: he rebukes by drawing upon metaphors, within which are three phrases. A monk seeking the great is called "wishing to walk the great path." The lesser Dharma is narrow and confined, just like a small trail. To teach the small when they seek the great is unbefitting in principle; hence, "do not show a small trail." "Do not put the great ocean into the hoofprint of an ox": the monk's great aspiration is like the great ocean; the lesser Dharma is tiny and shallow, its matter equivalent to a hoofprint. Settling the mind to abide in the Dharma is designated as "putting into." This too is unbefitting; hence, "do not." "Do not equate the sunlight with that firefly": the monk's great aspiration is just like sunlight; the lesser Dharma of the two vehicles is like a firefly. To equate the great with the small is unbefitting in principle; hence it is called "do not." According to the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra, there are two more phrases: "Do not equate Mount Sumeru, the king of mountains, with a mustard seed," and "Also, do not equate the roar of a great lion with the yelp of a jackal." In the fourth part, re-rebuking regarding capacities, the text has three phrases: first, clarifying that the monks had long generated the great aspiration, but had forgotten this resolve mid-way, because before realizing the Dharma, one's progress and regress are not constant. Second, from "How can the Hīnayāna Dharma" onwards, rebuking him that preaching the small has many faults. Third, from "I observe that the Hīnayāna" onwards, rebuking him for not knowing capacities. Their wisdom is slight and shallow, like that of a blind man: clarifying that the essence of their wisdom is inferior. The two vehicles only attain the wisdom of pudgala-nairātmya and have not awakened to dharma-nairātmya; therefore, their wisdom is slight and shallow. Moreover, they do not know the capacities of sentient beings; hence it is called "shallow." Being unable to distinguish the sharpness or dullness of faculties shows that the function of their wisdom is narrow. This shows that an arhat is still like a blind man with respect to the Mahāyāna Dharma; how much more so for us confused and deluded ordinary people who falsely give rise to discriminations! Question: The Śrīmālādevī Sūtra states: "Ordinary people are like those blind from birth, who do not see various colors; śrāvakas are like seven-day-old infants, who do not see the sun's orb." How can it now be said that śrāvakas are worse than those blind from birth? Answer: If it is regarding seeing the truth of reality, ordinary people cannot; therefore, that sūtra says they are like blind people, whereas śrāvakas partially attain it, so it says they are like seven-day-old infants who do not see the sun's orb. Here it says śrāvakas do not recognize the nature of capacities, hence they are worse than those blind from birth; it is not about seeing the truth of reality. Alternatively, it is said: in actual principle, the two vehicles partially know the capacities of sentient beings, but in order to humble and reprove the śrāvakas, they are said to be like the blind. Therefore the sūtra above says: "Pūrṇa, you should first enter samādhi to examine this person's mind, and then speak the Dharma." From "Then Vimalakīrti immediately entered samādhi, etc." onwards: this third part reveals his skillful transformation, causing them to awaken to the great and renounce the small. The text has six phrases: first, Vimalakīrti silently entered samādhi. Through his entering samādhi, he caused these monks to recognize their own past lives, having formerly planted roots of goodness and generated the aspiration before past Buddhas. According to the Bodhisattvabhūmi-śāstra (Dichi lun), knowledge of past lives has five aspects: 1. knowing one's own past lives; 2. knowing another's; 3. causing another to know; 4. causing another to know their own; 5. mutually knowing each other's past lives. What is discussed here is the fourth: causing another to know their own past lives. Question: In the Mahāyāna school, past dharmas do not exist; how could the monks know them? Answer: By obtaining the knowledge of past lives, they observe the seeds of past lives in the present ālayavijñāna and know past events. Alternatively, through the mental images appearing on the cognitive mind, they know past events. Third, from "Instantly and clearly" onwards: regaining their original aspiration. Because Vimalakīrti, through the power of his supernormal knowledge of past lives, supported those monks, they were able to see the good roots cultivated in the past and regained their original Mahāyāna aspiration. Fourth, from "Thereupon" onwards: expressing gratitude and paying reverence; having received such deep benefit, they cast off appearances, which is called bowing in reverence. Fifth, having generated the aspiration, he further preached the Dharma to them. Sixth, through his preaching the Dharma, they no longer retrogressed from bodhi. These monks were at the stage of the ten faiths; hearing this teaching now, they advanced into the ten abidings. In the seventh abiding, they abide in non-retrogression. Because they never retrogress to become the two vehicles, it is not merely the non-retrogression of faith; because they had long possessed faith, nor is it the two kinds of non-retrogression of realization or practice, because they were beginners. Question: Among the five kinds of bodhi, which bodhi did these monks realize? Answer: Among the five, they only realized the bodhi of subduing the mind. Because they had long believed, it was not the bodhi of generating the aspiration; because they were newly realizing it, it was not the three kinds such as the bodhi of illuminating the mind. "I reflect that śrāvakas do not examine people's capacities": this is the fourth part, expressing his own humility and inadequacy. I reflect that śrāvakas do not examine people's capacities and should not preach the Dharma. "Therefore" onwards concludes with his inability.