維摩經疏卷第三．第六 3.32

3.32

"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.