維摩經疏卷第三．第六 3.45

3.45

The fourth [structural] textual division is the same as before. In the third section, explaining the text, first there is a general interrogation and next a specific explanation. Within this there are two: first, adducing the past incident of being rebuked; second, from 'At that time Vimalakīrti...' down, explaining the manner of the rebuke. In the former there are three: first, clarifying the manner of Aniruddha's walking meditation; second, from 'At that time, there was a Brahmā heavenly king...' down, revealing that Brahmā king and the Brahmā assembly inquiring how much he saw; third, from 'I then answered...' down, Aniruddha properly answering according to what he himself saw. In the first, 'I recall in the past in one place engaged in walking meditation...': the first clarifies the manner of walking meditation. In the methods of foreign lands, both seated meditation and the recitation of scriptures are called walking meditation (caṅkrama). Here Aniruddha was in a quiet place sitting in meditation and silently contemplating; this is termed walking meditation, not referring to chanting scriptures and so forth. The Ekottarika Āgama states: 'Whether chanting or contemplating, roaming and walking along the path is therefore called walking meditation.' It has five benefits: first, it eliminates sleepiness; second, it eliminates bodily fatigue; third, it eliminates undigested food; fourth, it eliminates wind obstructions; fifth, it harmonizes the body, mind, and consciousness. 'At that time there was a Brahmā king...', the second part, clarifies the Brahmā king asking about the divine eye: 'How much does Aniruddha's divine eye see?' In terms of principle, he asked about seeing far and near. Because the reward-obtained divine eye of the Brahmā hosts was inferior to Aniruddha's cultivation-obtained eye, which was superior, they gave rise to admiration and reverence and came to ask. This phrasing conforms to the Western region, hence asking: 'How much is seen by Aniruddha's divine eye?' If conforming to this land, it should say: 'How much does Aniruddha's divine eye see?' 'I then answered...', the third part, clarifies Aniruddha properly answering. 'I see this trichiliocosm like an āmalaka fruit': what the Hīnayāna sees is restricted to a single world system, hence it is distinguished by realms. The Tathāgata has attained an all-head divine eye, seeing through all the ten directions. Although Aniruddha does not equal the Buddha, among the śrāvakas he cultivated and attained a half-head divine eye, able to see a trichiliocosm. As for the 'āmalaka fruit', its shape resembles a peach yet is not a peach; it can eliminate wind ailments. Aniruddha at that time held this fruit in his hand and therefore used it as an analogy.