維摩經疏卷第三．第六 3.40

3.40

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.