Name: Vimalakīrti Sūtra Commentary · Volume 3 · Disciples Chapter (Three) (维摩经义疏 · 第三 · 3 弟子品(三))
Author: 吉藏撰

資視師如父、自處如子，師處資為弟、自處如兄，敬護合論，故名弟子。依內義，學在佛後為弟、從佛口生為子。佛生物惠命為父、在物前悟稱兄。故《法華》云「世間之父，至親友家」，即其證也。四會為言，二集已竟。從此文去，竟乎〈香積〉，第三重會方丈。與前會異者，凡有七義：約眾為言，前俗眾問疾，今道眾擊揚；前近眾小眾，今遠眾多眾。據教而言，前略說法門，今廣宣妙道。若就利益，前但淺益，今具深淺。約二但為言，前破但凡，今斥但聖。所言但者，謂有所得定性凡聖也。若就今古，前說今法，此二品說於古法。約自他者，前淨名自說，以顯其德；今大小二人，顯淨名德。若論三化，〈方便品〉已破凡夫，此下二品斥聲聞菩薩。就此一會，開為二章：第一由序、第二正說。由序為二：一淨名現疾、二遣使慰問。「爾時長者維摩詰自念寢疾于床」。自念寢疾者，自傷念疾也。夫有身則有疾，此自世之常情耳。達者體之，何所傷哉？然五百長者皆近佛聽法，而淨名礙疾不預。理在致傷，是故自念。又淨名為物現疾，非佛影嚮，化則不成，故須自念。「世尊大慈寧不垂愍」。夫抱疾者必無樂有苦，世尊大慈遣使慰問，必與樂拔苦。故上句云慈，下句稱愍。又眾生疾故菩薩病，世尊大慈必見垂問，因以弘道，所濟良多，則眾生病愈，菩薩亦愈，則是慈悲之旨、現疾之本意。問：何故言寧不垂愍？答：眾人少慈，尚以參疾；佛有大慈，寧不慰問？「佛知其意」。此下第二遣使問疾。就文為二：第一前命聲聞、第二次命菩薩。問：聲聞菩薩並皆不堪，佛何故命？答：凡有四義：一示大慈平等，故並皆命之。二但命文殊，便不得具顯淨名之德；今既普命，則具顯其德，使問疾之流尊人重法。三者欲使時會於文殊起難遭想。五百聲聞、八千菩薩皆辭不堪，而文殊獨往者，故知辨慧難思，則敬情至極，受法為易。四者普命大小，具陳被呵，因述昔法以利今眾也。問：何故不前命菩薩、後命聲聞？答：就破病次第，〈方便品〉破凡夫，〈弟子品〉破聲聞，〈菩薩品〉呵大士。二就勝劣次第，聲聞形備法義、心具智斷，故心形兩勝，故前命之。菩薩心雖會道、形無定方，心勝形劣，故次命也。如羅什說「聲聞法中羅漢無漏智慧勝，菩薩世俗智慧勝，大乘法中菩薩二事俱勝。今用聲聞深，故前命弟子也。」「即告舍利弗：汝行詣維摩詰問疾」。就今聲聞為二：前命十人、後命五百。良以五百昇堂，十人入室也。論十人德行者，初謂四大聲聞：身子智慧、目連神通、迦葉苦行、善吉空解，故以定慧行解為四大聲聞。次有三人，妙達三藏，為三大法師：富樓那精究毘曇、旃延善解經藏、波離妙體毘尼。次佛親屬，凡有三人：那律天眼、羅雲秉戒、阿難總持。次約義，呵聲聞要法、示菩薩道門。初斥身子，呵聖默然；次詰目連，非聖說法。斯二是佛常初，而聲聞不達，故前呵之。次彈迦葉有行、呵善吉空解，顯聲聞人未有大乘行解。次呵滿願，常為人說，不見物機。旃延恒復佛講，不知教意。那律雖得天眼，不達會通。波離謂善毘尼，未解大乘法律。羅雲雖是聲聞棄俗，而不解大乘出家。阿難恒侍如來，不識佛之本迹。既呵聲聞十失，則顯大乘十得。次約義前後者，九人明佛因、第十辨佛果，即因果次第。九人之內，初八明修行，後一辨出家，此據說門明前後也。八人之中，前七明修善、後一辨滅惡。七人之中，前六明修道行以為行體、次一辨起道行以為行用。六人之中，前明定為慧本、次辨慧從定生，次明由解起行，後二藉行發解。今前命舍利弗。就此章中，開為二別：第一佛命、二辭不堪。舍利弗，王舍城摩迦陀國人也，從父為立字，名優波提舍。優波是星名，提舍逐父作名，故名提舍。舍利言身，是其母名。眼似舍利鳥，故名舍利。弗以言子，謂身子也。不從父受名、因母為稱，有二因緣：一者從過去誓願立名。釋迦過去發願：「願我作佛右面弟子，名舍利弗。」二者女人聰明，世所希有。時人貴重其母，故稱舍利弗也。「舍利弗白佛言：世尊！我不堪任詣彼問疾」。此第二辭不堪。就文為三：一標不堪、二釋不堪、三結不堪。此初文也。不堪之意，有三因緣，一者小乘智劣，不堪擊揚菩薩；二者昔曾受屈，則優劣事定，是故不堪；三者相與為化，屈申從物。今欲彰淨名德、顯文殊行，故稱不堪。「所以者何？憶念我昔曾於林中宴坐樹下」。此第二釋不堪。就文為三：一明被呵之由、二辨能呵之旨、三正受屈。身子於林中宴坐樹下者，凡具二義：一者有此身心二患。患身之喧動，故隱身於山林；患心之馳散，故攝心於一境。宴坐者，謂安也、默也，蓋閑居之貌。「時維摩詰來謂我言：唯舍利弗！不必是坐為宴坐也」。此第二明能呵之旨。就文為三：初呵二乘禪定、次出菩薩坐法、三總結之。不必是坐者，聲聞人謂坐法必隱身於林澤、息心於滅定。今以大乘望之，不必爾。道生云「不必者，不言非是，但不必是。不言非是者，二乘坐法乃可以為求大乘定之詮耳。」若爾，未是真極坐法也。興皇師云「必是，有所得住著之義。身子必有散可棄、有靜可欣。」近觀此章，遠通一化。此大小乘人，並是住著必定，故被呵也。「夫宴坐者，不於三界現身意，是為宴坐」。此下第二次出菩薩坐法，即用呵二乘也。凡有六雙：初辨身心俱隱、二明靜散雙遊、三道俗齊觀、四內外並冥、五解惑平等。六生死涅槃不二。略說六門為菩薩宴坐。初明身心俱隱。聲聞坐法，隱身於林間，而身猶現；息心於滅定，在心遂滅。此則一隱一不隱，故致被呵。菩薩以法身為身，雖處而非三界；妙慧為心，雖緣而常寂滅。此則身心俱隱，必為妙定，故異彼二乘也。又聲聞見有身心不隱，故欲隱之。大士知無不隱，何所隱哉？故不於三界現身意也。「不起滅定而現諸威儀，是為宴坐」。此第二對明靜散雙遊也。滅盡定者，《毘曇》心法既滅，有非色非心法，以滅定次補心處。《成實論》云「空心二處滅：一滅定時滅、二入無餘涅槃時滅。滅定即是無法。」此之二釋，並是小乘，入於滅定則形猶枯木，無運用之能。菩薩滅定者，《智度論》云「滅盡定，即波若之氣類。」了悟此心即是實相、本來寂滅，故能形充八極、應會無方，即是不壞假名而說實相，不動真際建立諸法。問：不起滅定，云何能現威儀？答：如意珠無心，隨人出寶；天鼓無心，應物有聲。至人無心於彼此，而能應一切。上辨不於三界現身，今明現諸威儀者，夫以無現則能無不現，故前即動而寂、此即寂而動。「不捨道法而現凡夫事，是為宴坐」。此第三明道俗齊觀。小乘障隔生死，不能和光。大士善惡齊旨、道俗一觀，故終日凡夫、終日道法。淨名之有居家，即其事也。「心不住內亦不在外，是為宴坐」。此第四內外並冥。賢聖攝心謂之內、凡夫馳想謂之外，大士俱異，故非內外。又心依因緣生，因即六根為內、緣即六塵為外。又因增上緣生為內、依緣緣生為外，大士知內外悉空，故無所依也。若心馳內外，為內外動亂，非宴坐也。若不馳內外，始名靜一，稱為宴坐也。上三句，呵二乘滅定、明菩薩滅定；此一句，呵二乘餘定、辨菩薩靜心也。「於諸見不動而修行三十七道品，是為宴坐也」。此第五明解惑平等。小乘以三四二五而伏諸見，用單七隻八斷諸見，故是動諸見而行道品。動是結斷之名。大士觀諸見實性即是道品，故云不動。如後文說「諸佛解脫於六十二見中求」，即其證也。「不斷煩惱而入涅槃，是為宴坐」。此第六明生死涅槃不二。了煩惱其性即是涅槃，不斷而後入也。「若能如此坐者，佛所印可」。此第三總結。平等坐法，不違實相、復順佛心、稱大乘機，具此三門，故佛印可也。二乘反之，以被呵。「時我，世尊！聞是語，默然而止，不能加報」。此第三次明受屈。理生意外，故莫知所詶。「故我不任詣彼問疾」。不堪有三，標釋已竟，今總結也。「佛告大目揵連：汝行詣維摩詰問疾」。所以次告目連者，夫人才有長短，身子或可一時漏機、受淨名屈。自可不能，餘何必爾，故不抑之而亦告也。復得備顯淨名道高，說昔法以利今眾，具如前說，故次命之。此章亦二：初命問疾、二辭不堪。目連是姓也，此言為食豆。上古有仙人，不食餘物，唯噉於豆，因為姓，目連是其族也。字物律陀者，是樹神名。其家無兒，禱此神而得之，故因以為字。是王舍城摩伽陀國輔相之子。與舍利弗俱共厭世，出家求道。身子右面，智慧第一；目連左面，神足無儔。「目連白佛言：世尊！我不堪任詣彼問疾」。此第二辭不堪也。此章亦三。初標不堪，如文。「所以者何？憶念我昔入毘耶離大城，於里巷中為諸居士說法」。此第二釋不堪也。就文為四：初出被呵之由、二明能呵之旨、三時會得道、四目連受屈。居士利根，應聞實相人法並空；目連不觀其機，為說施戒，居士聞已，起眾生相、封著諸法，遂有二失：一違實相、二不稱機。此被呵之由也。「時維摩詰來謂我言：唯大目連！為白衣居士說法，不當如仁者所說」。此第二敘能呵之旨。就文為二：初呵小乘說法、次明大士演教。不當如仁者所說，不當者謂不相應當也。凡有四義：一者機大教小，故不當機。二者實相非人法，今說有人法，故不當實相。三者諸佛見機見理，今違理暗機，故不當佛意。四不當者，不稱情機之義。「夫說法者當如法說」。此下第二明菩薩演教，以對小乘之失也。就文為五：一明所演之法、二辨聽說之方、三巧識物機、四善於知見、五辨說教大意。菩薩具此五門，方堪為物施教。即用斯五，誨彼聲聞。初門有二：一辨眾生空、二明法空。然實相正法未曾空有，但為祛有病是故說空。空理不殊，但於惑者情有難易。眾生心以總會成體，不實之意易明，是故前說之。似不假眾緣所成，此則難破，故後明之。《智度論》云「眾生生情，取之不得。凡夫妄謂為有，故易遣。法為眼耳見聞，斯則難破。」故前說生空、後辨法空。「法無眾生，離眾生垢故」。眾生者，陰界入等諸事會而生，心以為宰一之主。法者，實相法也。實相之法本無眾生，若見有眾生則乖於實相，故稱為垢。若悟實相，則其垢自離也。「法無有我，離我垢故」。我是自在為義，實相之法無此我也。「法無壽命，離生死故」。色心連持為命，百年相續久受為壽。外道計此壽命別有於法，故名壽者、命者。生為壽始、死為壽終，既無生死，何有壽命耶？不言無壽命而言無生死者，生死是命之始終，始終既離則壽命斯無。又壽命是人之所愛，若聞離之，必不能樂生；死是人之所惡，若聞離之，必欣習也。「法無有人，前後際斷故」。《智度論》云「行人法故，名之為人。故有靈，異於草木。」行因受果，往來生死永無朽滅，故外道謂之為常。前際既斷，無人造因；後際亦斷，無人受果，故云法無有人前後際斷故。「法常寂然，滅諸相故」。前有四句，明眾生空。此下二十六句，明法空也。生空易故略說，法空難故所以廣明。若以實過假、以空過實，如《成論》所說者，非常寂然；以本性清淨，故名常寂然。法雖寂然，但取相為有而謂不然，所以須滅，故言滅諸相故。此為法空之始，故略舉迷悟大宗。「法離於相，無所緣故」。萬像不同為相，此相是心之所緣。法既無相，則心無所緣。「法無名字，言語斷故」。上辨心行滅，此明言語斷。名生於言，言斷則無名。「法無有說，離覺觀故」。覺觀是言本，既無覺觀則言無由生。目連動覺觀心為物說法，故復呵之。「法無形相，如虛空故。法無戲論，畢竟空故。法無我所，離我所故」。我所有二：一親謂五陰、二疎即瓶衣。「法無分別，離諸識故」。分別生乎識，以離諸識故無分別。「法無有比，無相待故」。諸法相待生，猶長短比而形。無相待者，如《百論》說「長不在長中，以因短故長；非在短中，以相違故。亦不合在長短中，有二過故。」既無長短，何所待哉？「法不屬因，不在緣故」。因緣之名，其義不定。自有種子親而能生為因、水吐疎而助發為緣。自有本無果體，藉因辨之，素有其分，假緣而發，故互具有無二義。種受因緣兩名，因近故難曉、緣遠故易了。今以所易釋所難也。因親故言屬，緣疎故言在。「法同法性，入諸法故。法隨於如，無所隨故。法住實際，諸邊不動故」。法性、如、實際，此三皆是實相異名。如實不變名如，是諸體性故名法性，窮其除畔稱實際也。始見法實，如遠見樹，知定是樹，名為如。見法轉深，如近見樹，知是何木，名為法性。窮盡知樹根莖枝葉之數，名為實際。此三未始非樹，因見為異耳。入諸法者，諸法萬相，誰能遍入諸法者？其唯法性乎！諸邊不動者，有無諸邊不能動於實際。又解邊是際之異名。法既住於實際，則邊不復動。「法無動搖，不依六塵故」。情依六塵，故有奔逸之動。法本無依，故無動搖。「法無去來，常不住故」。法若暫住，經於三世，則有去來。法無暫住，故無去來也。「法順於空、隨無相、應無作。法離好醜、法無增損、法無生滅、法無所歸、法過眼耳鼻舌身心、法無高下、法常住不動、法離一切觀行。唯大目連！法相如是，豈可說乎」。心觀不能及，豈況於言乎？「夫說法者無說無示，其聽法者無聞無得」。此第二示聽說之方，以誨目連及居士也。說法示人，名為說示。而言無說無示者，終日說，未常說也。始則聞法、終有所得，而言無聞無得者，終日聞，無所聞也。「譬如幻士為幻人說法，當建是意而為說法」。淨名雖唱法不可說，而猶說此不可說，故今明我所說者如幻而說耳。「當了眾生根有利鈍」。此第三示無識物機。居士應聞空義而目連為說有法者，由其未了眾生根也。又上雖明大乘之法，宜善察物機，可隨大小而授，不得一向說大法也。「善於知見，無所罣礙」。此第四明善於知見。目連說小、不明大者，良由未善知見也。「以大悲心、讚于大乘、念報佛恩、不斷三寶，然後說法」。此第五明說法大意。夫欲說法，必須成此四心：一建大悲心、二讚於大乘、三念報佛恩、四不斷三寶。若讚小乘，濟拔小苦，名為小悲。若讚大乘，能拔大苦，稱大悲故，言大悲心讚大乘也。既讚大乘，必紹繼師種，故三寶不斷，名報佛恩。若說小乘，則斷三寶種，名無反復。「維摩詰說是法時，八百居士發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心」。此第三明時眾發心。淨名既讚大呵小，符理稱機，故時眾蒙益也。「我無此辨」。此第四目連受屈。「是故不任詣彼問疾」。不堪有三，標釋已竟，今總結也。

Shariputra, regard your teacher as a father and yourself as his son; the teacher regards the disciple as a younger brother and himself as an elder brother. They respect and protect each other, harmoniously discussing the Dharma; therefore, they are called disciples. According to the inner meaning: learning after the Buddha makes one a younger brother; being born from the Buddha’s mouth makes one a son. The Buddha gives birth to the life of wisdom as a father; being awakened before all beings is called an elder brother. Thus, the *Lotus Sutra* says, “The father of the world, to the home of his closest friend,” which serves as proof. In terms of the four assemblies, two have already gathered. From this text onward, up to the “Fragrant Accumulation” chapter, is the third grand assembly in the square chamber. The differences from the previous assembly are sevenfold: Regarding the assembly, previously laypeople inquired about illness, now monastics engage in debate; previously the assembly was near and small, now it is distant and large. Regarding the teaching, previously the Dharma doors were briefly explained, now the wondrous path is extensively proclaimed. Regarding benefit, previously only shallow benefits were given, now both shallow and deep benefits are present. Regarding the two kinds of attachment, previously the attachment of ordinary beings was refuted, now the attachment of saints is criticized. The term “attachment” refers to the fixed nature of gain-seeking ordinary beings and saints. Regarding past and present, previously present Dharma was spoken; these two chapters speak of ancient Dharma. Regarding self and others, previously Vimalakīrti spoke himself to display his virtue; now two people, one great and one small, display Vimalakīrti’s virtue. Regarding the three transformations, the “Skillful Means” chapter already refuted ordinary beings; the next two chapters criticize śrāvakas and bodhisattvas. This single assembly is divided into two sections: first, the introductory narrative; second, the main discourse. The introductory narrative has two parts: first, Vimalakīrti manifests illness; second, envoys are sent to inquire.

“At that time, the elder Vimalakīrti thought to himself, ‘I am lying sick in bed.’” “Thought to himself” means he grieved over his illness. Where there is a body, there is illness—this is the common sentiment of the world. Those who have realized the truth embody it; what is there to grieve? However, five hundred elders were near the Buddha listening to the Dharma, while Vimalakīrti was hindered by illness and could not attend. In principle, this warrants grief; therefore, he thought to himself. Moreover, Vimalakīrti manifested illness for the sake of beings; without the Buddha’s influence, the transformation would not be complete; therefore, he needed to think to himself. “The World-Honored One, with great compassion, surely does not withhold his pity.” Those who are ill inevitably have no joy and only suffering. The World-Honored One, with great compassion, sends envoys to inquire, certainly to give joy and remove suffering. Therefore, the first phrase speaks of compassion, the next phrase speaks of pity. Furthermore, because beings are ill, the bodhisattva is sick. The World-Honored One, with great compassion, will surely send an inquiry, thereby widely propagating the path, bringing much aid. Then, when beings’ illnesses are cured, the bodhisattva is also cured. This is the intent of compassion and the fundamental purpose of manifesting illness. Question: Why does it say, “surely does not withhold his pity”? Answer: Ordinary people, with little compassion, still visit the sick; the Buddha, with great compassion, surely inquires. “The Buddha knew his intention.” This begins the second part: sending envoys to inquire about the illness. The text has two sections: first, commanding śrāvakas; second, commanding bodhisattvas. Question: Both śrāvakas and bodhisattvas were unable; why did the Buddha command them? Answer: There are four reasons: First, to show great compassion and equality, therefore commanding all. Second, if only Mañjuśrī were commanded, Vimalakīrti’s virtue could not be fully revealed; now, by commanding all, his virtue is fully revealed, making those who inquire respect the person and value the Dharma. Third, to make the assembly at that time develop a rare thought toward Mañjuśrī. Five hundred śrāvakas and eight thousand bodhisattvas all declined, unable to go, while Mañjuśrī alone went. Thus, it is known that his discerning wisdom is inconceivable, so reverence reaches its peak, making receiving the Dharma easy. Fourth, by commanding both great and small, all recount being rebuked, thereby explaining past Dharma to benefit the present assembly. Question: Why not command bodhisattvas first, then śrāvakas? Answer: In terms of the sequence of refuting faults, the “Skillful Means” chapter refutes ordinary beings, the “Disciples” chapter refutes śrāvakas, and the “Bodhisattvas” chapter admonishes great beings. Second, in terms of superior and inferior sequence: śrāvakas have form complete with Dharma meaning, mind endowed with wisdom and cessation; thus, both mind and form are superior, so they are commanded first. Bodhisattvas’ minds, though realizing the path, have no fixed form; mind superior, form inferior, so they are commanded next. As Kumārajīva said, “In the śrāvaka Dharma, arhats’ uncontaminated wisdom is superior; bodhisattvas’ worldly wisdom is superior. In the Mahāyāna Dharma, bodhisattvas are superior in both. Here, because śrāvakas are profound, disciples are commanded first.”

“Then he said to Śāriputra: ‘You go to Vimalakīrti to inquire about his illness.’” Regarding the śrāvakas now, there are two: first commanding ten people, then commanding five hundred. This is because five hundred entered the hall, ten entered the inner chamber. Discussing the ten people’s virtues: first are the four great śrāvakas: Śāriputra with wisdom, Mahāmaudgalyāyana with spiritual powers, Mahākāśyapa with ascetic practices, Subhūti with understanding of emptiness. Thus, concentration, wisdom, practice, and understanding are the four great śrāvakas. Next are three people, profoundly versed in the three baskets, the three great Dharma teachers: Pūrṇa thoroughly studied the Abhidharma, Kātyāyana skillfully explained the sūtra basket, Upāli excelled in the Vinaya. Next are the Buddha’s relatives, three people: Nanda with divine eye, Rāhula upholding precepts, Ānanda with total retention. Next, in terms of meaning: admonishing the essential Dharma of śrāvakas, showing the bodhisattva path. First admonishing Śāriputra, criticizing holy silence; next questioning Mahāmaudgalyāyana, negating holy teaching. These two are the Buddha’s constant beginnings, but śrāvakas do not understand, so they are admonished first. Next criticizing Mahākāśyapa’s having practice, admonishing Subhūti’s understanding of emptiness, showing śrāvakas lack Mahāyāna practice and understanding. Next admonishing Pūrṇamaitrāyaṇīputra, constantly teaching others but not seeing beings’ capacities. Kātyāyana constantly repeated the Buddha’s lectures but did not know the teaching’s meaning. Nanda, though attaining divine eye, did not understand integration. Upāli, considered skilled in Vinaya, did not understand Mahāyāna Dharma and precepts. Rāhula, though a śrāvaka renouncing the world, did not understand Mahāyāna renunciation. Ānanda constantly attended the Tathāgata but did not recognize the Buddha’s traces. Having admonished the ten faults of śrāvakas, the ten virtues of Mahāyāna are revealed. Next, in terms of meaning and sequence: nine people clarify Buddha’s causes, the tenth clarifies Buddha’s fruit, i.e., cause and effect sequence. Among the nine, the first eight clarify cultivation, the last one clarifies renunciation—this is according to the teaching’s sequence. Among the eight, the first seven clarify cultivating good, the last one clarifies eliminating evil. Among the seven, the first six clarify cultivating the path as the essence of practice; the next one clarifies initiating the path as the function of practice. Among the six, the first clarifies concentration as the basis of wisdom; next clarifies wisdom arising from concentration; next clarifies practice arising from understanding; the last two clarify understanding arising from practice. Now Śāriputra is commanded first. This chapter is divided into two parts: first, the Buddha’s command; second, declining as unable. Śāriputra was from Rājagṛha, Magadha. Named after his father as Upatiṣya. Upa is a star name; tiṣya follows the father’s name, so called Tiṣya. Śāri means body, his mother’s name. Eyes like a śāri bird, so called Śāri. Putra means son, so called Śāriputra. Not named after the father, named after the mother, for two reasons: First, named from past vows. Śākyamuni in the past vowed: “May I have a right-hand disciple named Śāriputra.” Second, women’s intelligence is rare in the world. People of the time valued his mother, so called Śāriputra.

“Śāriputra said to the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One, I am not able to go to him to inquire about his illness.’” This is the second part: declining as unable. The text has three parts: first stating unable, second explaining unable, third concluding unable. This is the first. The reason for being unable has three causes: first, inferior wisdom of the small vehicle, unable to debate with bodhisattvas; second, having been defeated before, superiority and inferiority are determined, therefore unable; third, cooperating in transformation, bending and extending according to beings. Now wishing to reveal Vimalakīrti’s virtue and display Mañjuśrī’s practice, he says unable. “‘Why? I remember once in the past, I was sitting in meditation under a tree in the forest.’” This second part explains unable. The text has three parts: first stating the reason for being admonished, second clarifying the meaning of the admonition, third the actual defeat. Śāriputra sitting in meditation under a tree in the forest generally has two meanings: First, having these two afflictions of body and mind. Afflicted by the body’s disturbance, he hides the body in mountains and forests; afflicted by the mind’s scattering, he gathers the mind in one object. “Sitting in meditation” means peaceful and silent, the appearance of leisurely dwelling.

“Then Vimalakīrti came and said to me: ‘Only, Śāriputra! Sitting like this is not necessarily sitting in meditation.’” This second part clarifies the meaning of the admonition. The text has three parts: first admonishing śrāvaka concentration, next presenting the bodhisattva’s method of sitting, third summarizing. “Not necessarily sitting” means śrāvakas consider the method of sitting necessarily hiding the body in forests and marshes, ceasing the mind in cessation concentration. Now, from the Mahāyāna perspective, it is not necessarily so. Daosheng said: “‘Not necessarily’ does not mean it is not, but only not necessarily so. Not saying it is not means the śrāvaka method of sitting can serve as an explanation for seeking Mahāyāna concentration.” If so, it is not the ultimate method of sitting. Master Xinghuang said: “‘Necessarily’ has the meaning of attachment to something. Śāriputra necessarily had scattering to abandon, stillness to desire.” Viewing this chapter closely, it connects widely to the entire teaching. These people of great and small vehicles are all attached to necessity, therefore admonished.

“Sitting in meditation is not manifesting body and mind in the three realms; this is sitting in meditation.” This next second part presents the bodhisattva’s method of sitting, thereby admonishing śrāvakas. There are six pairs: first, clarifying body and mind both hidden; second, clarifying stillness and activity both engaged; third, path and worldly equal; fourth, internal and external both merged; fifth, understanding and delusion equal; sixth, saṃsāra and nirvāṇa non-dual. Briefly explaining six gates as the bodhisattva’s sitting in meditation. First clarifying body and mind both hidden. The śrāvaka method of sitting hides the body in the forest, yet the body still appears; ceases the mind in cessation concentration, the mind then ceases. This is one hidden, one not hidden, therefore leading to admonishment. Bodhisattvas take the Dharma body as body, though abiding, not in the three realms; wondrous wisdom as mind, though engaging, always quiescently extinguished. This is body and mind both hidden, necessarily wondrous concentration, thus different from śrāvakas. Moreover, śrāvakas see body and mind as not hidden, so wish to hide them. Great beings know nothing is not hidden, what is there to hide? Therefore not manifesting body and mind in the three realms.

“Not arising from cessation concentration yet manifesting all dignified conduct; this is sitting in meditation.” This second pair clarifies stillness and activity both engaged. Cessation concentration: according to the Abhidharma, mental dharmas having ceased, there are non-material non-mental dharmas that supplement the mind’s place after cessation concentration. According to the *Satyasiddhi Śāstra*, empty mind ceases in two places: first, when entering cessation concentration; second, when entering final nirvāṇa. Cessation concentration is without dharmas. These two explanations are both śrāvaka; entering cessation concentration, the form is like withered wood, without functioning ability. Bodhisattva cessation concentration: according to the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā Śāstra*, “Cessation concentration is akin to prajñā.” Fully realizing this mind is actual reality, originally quiescently extinguished, therefore able to fill the eight directions with form, responding without fixed method. This is not destroying conventional names yet speaking of actual reality, not moving the true basis yet establishing all dharmas. Question: Not arising from cessation concentration, how can dignified conduct be manifested? Answer: Like the wish-fulfilling jewel, without mind, produces treasures according to people; like the heavenly drum, without mind, produces sound according to things. The supreme person is without mind regarding this or that, yet able to respond to all. Above clarified not manifesting body in the three realms; now clarifies manifesting all dignified conduct: because without manifestation, able to manifest without exception. Therefore, above is moving yet quiescent; this is quiescent yet moving.

“Not abandoning the Dharma of the path yet manifesting ordinary people’s affairs; this is sitting in meditation.” This third clarifies path and worldly equal. Śrāvakas obstruct saṃsāra, unable to blend with the world. Great beings have good and evil equal in intent, path and worldly one view, therefore all day ordinary people, all day Dharma of the path. Vimalakīrti having a household is an example.

“Mind not abiding internally, also not abiding externally; this is sitting in meditation.” This fourth, internal and external both merged. Sages gather the mind internally; ordinary people scatter thoughts externally. Great beings differ from both, therefore not internal or external. Moreover, mind arises dependent on conditions: cause is the six sense bases as internal; condition is the six objects as external. Also, arising from increased condition as internal; arising from objective condition as external. Great beings know internal and external are empty, therefore nothing to depend on. If the mind scatters internally and externally, moved and disturbed by internal and external, it is not sitting in meditation. If not scattering internally and externally, then stillness is unified, called sitting in meditation. The above three sentences admonish śrāvaka cessation concentration, clarify bodhisattva cessation concentration; this one sentence admonishes śrāvaka remaining concentration, clarifies bodhisattva still mind.

“Regarding all views not moving, yet cultivating the thirty-seven aids to enlightenment; this is sitting in meditation.” This fifth clarifies understanding and delusion equal. Śrāvakas use three, four, two, five to subdue all views; use single seven, only eight to cut off all views, therefore moving all views to practice the aids to enlightenment. “Moving” is the name for severing bonds. Great beings contemplate the true nature of all views as the aids to enlightenment, therefore said not moving. As later text says, “The liberation of all buddhas is sought within the sixty-two views,” which is proof.

“Not cutting off afflictions yet entering nirvāṇa; this is sitting in meditation.” This sixth clarifies saṃsāra and nirvāṇa non-dual. Fully understanding afflictions’ nature is nirvāṇa, not cutting off yet afterward entering.

“If able to sit like this, the Buddha approves.” This third part summarizes. Equal method of sitting, not contradicting actual reality, also conforming to the Buddha’s mind, suited to Mahāyāna capacities—possessing these three gates, therefore the Buddha approves. Śrāvakas are the opposite, therefore admonished.

“At that time, I, World-Honored One, hearing these words, silently stopped, unable to respond.” This third part clarifies being defeated. Principle arising beyond thought, therefore not knowing how to reply.

“Therefore, I am not able to go to him to inquire about his illness.” Unable has three parts; stating and explaining already done, now concluding.

“The Buddha said to Mahāmaudgalyāyana: ‘You go to Vimalakīrti to inquire about his illness.’” The reason for next telling Maudgalyāyana: people’s abilities have strengths and weaknesses; Śāriputra might have momentarily missed the opportunity, defeated by Vimalakīrti. If he himself could not, why must others? Therefore not suppressing but also telling. Also, to fully reveal Vimalakīrti’s lofty path, explaining past Dharma to benefit the present assembly, as previously explained, therefore next commanding. This chapter also has two parts: first commanding to inquire about illness; second declining as unable. Maudgalyāyana is a family name, meaning “bean eater.” An ancient ascetic ate nothing else, only beans, therefore the family name; Maudgalyāyana is the clan. Named Kolita, a tree deity’s name. His family had no children, prayed to this deity and obtained him, therefore named accordingly. He was the son of a minister in Rājagṛha, Magadha. Together with Śāriputra, they renounced the world, left home seeking the path. Śāriputra on the right, wisdom foremost; Maudgalyāyana on the left, spiritual powers unmatched.

“Maudgalyāyana said to the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One, I am not able to go to him to inquire about his illness.’” This second part declining as unable. This chapter also has three parts. First stating unable, as text.

“‘Why? I remember once in the past, I entered the great city of Vaiśālī, in the lanes and alleys, teaching

「佛告大迦葉：汝行詣維摩詰問疾」。第三次命迦葉。問：迦葉既為上座，何不前命？答：布薩受食，可依年獵；銜命擊揚，宜用辨慧。問：若爾，《法華》何故前序迦葉？答：彼經明會三之義，迦葉為稟異之初。義各有由，無相害也。摩訶迦葉者，翻為大龜，是其姓也。別名必鉢羅，此云普逐，是王舍城摩訶陀國婆羅門種。夫妻二人。身並金色，俱共厭世出家，皆得阿羅漢果。於十弟子內，苦行第一。「迦葉白佛言：世尊！我不堪任詣彼問疾」。此第二辭不堪。就文為三：謂標、釋、結。此即標也。「所以者何？憶念我昔貧里而乞食」。此第二次釋呵也。就文為三：一被呵之由、二能呵之旨、三明得益。此初章也。於貧里而行乞者，凡有四義，一者貧人昔不種福，是故今又不殖，來生復貧。復貧相繫，無得脫時。今欲愍其長苦，故從乞也。二者四大聲聞得滅盡定，而迦葉為得定之勝，其有施者能令現世獲報。欲濟其交切之苦，故從貧乞。三者富貴則嬌奢難化，貧窮易受道法。今欲度之，故乞也。四者若從富貴乞，則有名利之嫌。今往貧里，有會小欲之行。「時維摩詰來謂我言：唯大迦葉！有慈悲心而不能普，捨豪富從貧乞」。此第二明能呵之旨。就文為二：初呵聲聞慈悲、次教菩薩乞法。雖有慈悲不能普者，即捨富從貧，於貧有悲、捨富無慈，名為不普。又捨富從貧，即是自現行悲、自現行慈，則有可譏之迹，是故被呵。所以偏呵悲者，捨富從貧以慈為主，故前呵其悲偏。「迦葉！住平等法，應次行乞食」。此下第二說菩薩乞法，以教聲聞。夫乞食有六：一行乞食、二入聚洛、三有所見聞、四明噉食、五有福田、第六總結。初門四句：第一對聲聞悲偏，說平等乞食。夫生死流轉、貴賤無常，或今貧後富、或今富後貧。大而觀之，苦樂不異。是以凡住平等之法，應次第行乞，不宜捨富而從貧也。「為不食故應行乞食」。此第二句，明乞食意也。聲聞為欲食而行乞食；今明不應爾也，為不食故應行乞食耳。言不食者，即是食之實相，以此心行乞食也。「為壞和合相故應取揣食」。此第三明取食法也。聲聞受取揣食，為資養五陰。今明不應建於此心受揣食，應為壞和合相故取揣食。和合者，謂五陰聚集以此成身，名和合也。揣食者，食有四種：一者揣食，以香味觸和合成之，以可揣握，故名為揣，即欲界食也。二曰願食，如兒見沙囊，而命不絕，是願食也。三曰業食，地獄不食而活，由其罪業應久受苦痛也。四曰識食，無色眾生以識相續，命不斷也。「為不受故應受彼食」。此第四句，明受食也。聲聞以人為能受食、食為所受。以能受所受，故名受食。今明不見人為能受、食為所受，應以此心受彼食也。文雖四句，義有二章：初平等乞，謂功德業；後之三句，明於智慧。智慧則異凡、功德則超聖，故非凡夫行。非賢聖行，是菩薩行，豈止誨彼聲聞？夫欲行乞，當依此法也。「以空聚相入於聚落」。此第二句，明入聚落。然行乞食必入聚落，故次辨之耳。聲聞以有聚相入於聚落，故明以空聚相入於聚落。空聚者，聚落之內空，無貧富人也。若然，不應捨富而從貧。又即聚落本畢竟空，名空聚落。若爾，亦不應有取捨心。「所見色與盲等」。此第三次明見聞。夫入聚落，必有見聞，凡夫見聞則生諸結，二乘視聽則怖畏六塵。今雙斥聖凡，故辨菩薩法也。見色與有等者，非謂閉目不視，然終日見而無所見，故稱為盲。「所聞聲與響等」。聞響不生憙怒，聽聲宜可同之。「所嗅香如風等」。風行香林而無心受，今聞香亦應同之。「所食味不分別」。法無定相，由分別取相謂之為味，若不分別則非味也。「受諸觸如智證」。小乘智證滅時，心無所染。身受諸觸，宜可同之。「知諸法如幻相，無自性、無他性」。諸法從因緣生，故無自他性。如會指成捲，故捲無自性。指亦如是，故無自他性。「本自不然，今則無滅」。喻向無自故無他也。如有燃故有滅；本自不燃，今則無滅。有自故有他耳。本無自，何有他耶？「迦葉！若能不捨八邪入八解脫、以邪相入正法」。此第四呵其正食。若能悟邪正不二，便得平等觀，乃可食人施也。八解脫，即八背捨。違八解脫，名為八邪。所以偏明此之法等者，良由迦葉謂捨八邪，得八解脫、有滅盡定，能生物福，故偏說也。邪正既一，便不相乖，故復云入也。「以一食施一切、供養諸佛及眾賢聖，然後可食」。上示其受食，為物福田。此教其受食，復為施主。既得邪正等觀，便是無礙無盡法門，能以一食施於一切，如後鉢飯事也。若未得真悟，受食之時宜應作心，上供三寶、下施四生，即是建無盡無礙心也。「如是食者，非有煩惱、非離煩惱」。有煩惱食，凡夫也。離煩惱食，二乘也。今勸雙捨凡聖，故非有無也。「不入定意、非起定意」。小乘人有二時入定：一者將欲食時前入定，作不淨觀，然後起定方食；二者噉食以後復入禪定，生施主福。此之二時，入定則不食、食則不入定。菩薩得無礙觀，終日食而終日定，故無出入之名。又大士體道未曾靜散，故非入非起、非住世間非住涅槃。凡夫之食，願壽命長存，為住世間。二乘受食，欲入涅槃。又聲聞受食，名住世間，後欣取滅稱住涅槃。今並異之，故兩非也。以菩薩不食而食，故非住涅槃；食無所食，故非住世間。「其有施者，無大福無小福、不為益不為損」。此第五次明福田。若迦葉得平等觀，則能外說平等法，能令施主復平等心，不計福之大小、己之損益。又解：大小據前人、損益就迦葉，田勝則施主得大福、田劣則獲小福，得食則獲五事為益、不得則無五事為損，故損益據迦葉。「是為正入佛道，不依聲聞」。此第六總結。如上所明，便得平等觀，名正入道，則能自利利人，故不依聲聞。「迦葉！若如是食，為不空食人之施也」。既有正悟，便是良田，故不虛人施。「時我，世尊！聞說是語，得未曾有，即於一切菩薩深起敬心，復作是念：斯有家名，辨才智慧乃能如是，其誰不發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心！我從是來，不復勸人以聲聞辟支佛行」。此第三明迦葉蒙益。凡有五句：一歎法希有。二得敬勝人。復作是念，第三讚嘆。斯有家名者，在家大士。淨名遐布，誰不發心？第四勸發心。我從是來，第五迦葉自立大志。「是故不任詣彼問疾」。不堪有三：標、釋竟，今總結也。

The Buddha said to Mahākāśyapa, "You go and visit Vimalakīrti to inquire about his illness." This is the third time he summons Kāśyapa. Question: Since Kāśyapa is the senior monk, why was he not summoned earlier? Answer: For reciting the precepts and receiving alms, one may follow seniority; but for carrying out a mission and engaging in debate, one should employ wisdom and eloquence. Question: If so, why is Kāśyapa listed first in the preface of the *Lotus Sutra*? Answer: That sutra clarifies the principle of uniting the three vehicles, and Kāśyapa was the first to receive the distinct teaching. Each case has its own reason; they do not contradict each other. Mahākāśyapa is translated as "Great Tortoise," which is his clan name. His personal name is Pippala, meaning "Universal Pursuit." He was a Brahmin from the Magadha kingdom in Rājagṛha. Both husband and wife had golden-colored bodies. They both grew weary of worldly life, left home, and attained the fruit of Arhatship. Among the ten great disciples, he was foremost in ascetic practices. "Kāśyapa said to the Buddha, 'World-Honored One! I am not qualified to go and inquire about his illness.'" This is the second refusal. The text has three parts: stating, explaining, and concluding. This is the statement. "Why is that? I recall in the past, I begged for alms exclusively in poor neighborhoods." This is the second part, explaining the rebuke. The text has three sections: the reason for being rebuked, the meaning of the rebuke, and the benefit gained. This is the first section. Begging in poor neighborhoods has four meanings: First, poor people in the past did not cultivate blessings, so now they do not plant seeds, and in future lives they will again be poor. This cycle of poverty binds them without escape. To pity their enduring suffering, one begs from them. Second, the four great Śrāvakas attained the cessation of perception and feeling, and Kāśyapa was the foremost among them in attaining this concentration. Those who give to him can obtain rewards in this present life. To relieve their pressing suffering, one begs from the poor. Third, the wealthy are arrogant and difficult to transform, while the poor easily accept the Dharma. To save them, one begs from them. Fourth, if one begs from the wealthy, there is suspicion of seeking fame and profit. Going to poor neighborhoods accords with the practice of having few desires. "At that time, Vimalakīrti came and said to me, 'O great Kāśyapa! You have a compassionate heart, but it is not universal. You forsake the rich and beg only from the poor.'" This is the second section, explaining the meaning of the rebuke. The text has two parts: first, rebuking the Śrāvaka's compassion; second, teaching the Bodhisattva's method of begging. Although having compassion but not being universal means forsaking the rich for the poor, having compassion for the poor but no compassion for the rich is called not being universal. Also, forsaking the rich for the poor means personally displaying compassion and personally displaying kindness; thus, there is a trace that can be criticized, and so he was rebuked. The reason for specifically rebuking compassion is that forsaking the rich for the poor is primarily about kindness, so first his compassion is rebuked as partial. "Kāśyapa! Abiding in the Dharma of equality, you should beg for alms in sequence." From here begins the second part, explaining the Bodhisattva's method of begging to teach the Śrāvaka. Begging for alms has six aspects: first, going to beg; second, entering the village; third, what is seen and heard; fourth, consuming the food; fifth, being a field of merit; sixth, the conclusion. The first part has four sentences: The first contrasts with the Śrāvaka's partial compassion, teaching equal begging. In the cycle of birth and death, high and low status are impermanent. Some are poor now but rich later; some are rich now but poor later. Viewed broadly, suffering and happiness are not different. Therefore, those who abide in the Dharma of equality should beg in sequence and should not forsake the rich for the poor. "For the sake of not eating, you should beg for food." This is the second sentence, clarifying the intention of begging. Śrāvakas beg for food because they want to eat; now it is explained that one should not do so. For the sake of not eating, one should beg for food. "Not eating" means the true reality of eating; with this mind, one begs for food. "To destroy the notion of combination, you should receive morsel food." This third sentence clarifies the method of receiving food. Śrāvakas receive morsel food to sustain the five aggregates. Now it is explained that one should not harbor this mind when receiving morsel food; one should receive morsel food to destroy the notion of combination. "Combination" refers to the gathering of the five aggregates forming the body, called combination. Morsel food is one of four kinds of food: first, morsel food, formed by the combination of smell, taste, and touch, which can be held in the hand, hence called morsel food; this is the food of the desire realm. Second, volition food, as when a child sees a sandbag and its life is sustained; this is volition food. Third, karma food, as in hell where beings live without eating due to their evil karma causing prolonged suffering. Fourth, consciousness food, as formless beings sustain life through the continuity of consciousness. "For the sake of not receiving, you should receive that food." This fourth sentence clarifies receiving food. Śrāvakas consider the person as the receiver and the food as the received. With receiver and received, it is called receiving food. Now it is explained that one does not see a person as receiver or food as received; with this mind, one should receive that food. Although the text has four sentences, the meaning has two parts: first, equal begging, referring to merit and action; the latter three sentences clarify wisdom. Wisdom differs from ordinary people; merit surpasses the saints. Thus it is not the practice of ordinary people, nor the practice of saints and sages; it is the practice of Bodhisattvas. Does it only instruct those Śrāvakas? Those who wish to beg should rely on this method. "With the notion of an empty village, enter the village." This second sentence clarifies entering the village. However, to beg for food one must enter the village, so it is discussed next. Śrāvakas enter the village with the notion of an existing village; therefore, it is explained to enter with the notion of an empty village. "Empty village" means within the village it is empty, without poor or rich people. If so, one should not forsake the rich for the poor. Also, the village is ultimately empty by nature, called an empty village. If so, one should not have a mind of acceptance or rejection. "The sights seen are equal to a blind man's." This third section clarifies seeing and hearing. Upon entering a village, one inevitably sees and hears. Ordinary people, upon seeing and hearing, give rise to various bonds; the two vehicles, upon seeing and hearing, fear the six sense objects. Now both ordinary people and saints are rejected, so the Bodhisattva's method is explained. "Sights seen are equal to a blind man's" does not mean closing the eyes and not seeing, but rather seeing all day without seeing anything, thus called blind. "The sounds heard are equal to echoes." Hearing echoes does not produce joy or anger; hearing sounds should be the same. "The smells smelled are like the wind." The wind passes through fragrant forests without intention to receive; now smelling fragrances should be the same. "The tastes eaten are not discriminated." Dharmas have no fixed characteristics; through discrimination and grasping characteristics, they are called tastes. If not discriminated, they are not tastes. "Experiencing contacts is like wisdom's realization." When the wisdom of the small vehicle realizes cessation, the mind is undefiled. The body experiencing various contacts should be the same. "Know all dharmas are like illusions, without self-nature, without other-nature." All dharmas arise from causes and conditions, thus without self-nature or other-nature. Like joining fingers to make a fist; the fist has no self-nature. The fingers are also thus, so there is no self-nature or other-nature. "Originally unarisen, now without cessation." The metaphor above shows no self, thus no other. Like having burning, thus having extinction; originally unburning, now without extinction. Having self, thus having other. Originally no self, how can there be other? "Kāśyapa! If you can, without abandoning the eight wrongs, enter the eight liberations; with the characteristic of wrong, enter the right Dharma." This fourth section rebukes his proper eating. If one can realize wrong and right are not two, one attains the view of equality, and then can eat people's offerings. The eight liberations are the eight emancipations. Opposing the eight liberations are called the eight wrongs. The reason for specifically explaining this Dharma equality is because Kāśyapa thought that by abandoning the eight wrongs, attaining the eight liberations, and having the cessation of perception and feeling, he could generate blessings for beings; therefore, it is specifically discussed. Since wrong and right are one, they do not conflict, so it is again said "enter." "With one meal offering to all, making offerings to all Buddhas and all sages and saints, then you may eat." Above, receiving food is shown as being a field of merit for beings. Here, receiving food is taught also for the donor. Having attained the equal view of wrong and right, one attains the unobstructed, inexhaustible Dharma gate, able to offer one meal to all, like the later incident with the bowl of rice. If one has not yet attained true realization, when receiving food one should mentally offer it upward to the Three Jewels and downward give it to the four kinds of beings; this is establishing an inexhaustible, unobstructed mind. "Eating like this is neither having afflictions nor being apart from afflictions." Eating with afflictions is ordinary people. Eating apart from afflictions is the two vehicles. Now urging to abandon both ordinary and saintly, thus it is neither having nor not having. "Not entering concentration, not arising from concentration." Practitioners of the small vehicle have two times of entering concentration: first, before eating, they enter concentration, contemplate impurity, then arise from concentration and eat; second, after eating, they again enter meditation, generating blessings for the donor. At these two times, entering concentration they do not eat; eating they do not enter concentration. Bodhisattvas, attaining the unobstructed view, eat all day and are in concentration all day, thus no names of entering or arising. Also, great beings embody the Way, never still or scattered, thus neither entering nor arising, neither abiding in the world nor abiding in Nirvāṇa. Ordinary people's eating wishes for long life, abiding in the world. The two vehicles receiving food wish to enter Nirvāṇa. Also, Śrāvakas receiving food is called abiding in the world; later delighting in extinction is called abiding in Nirvāṇa. Now both are different, thus both are negated. Because Bodhisattvas eat without eating, thus not abiding in Nirvāṇa; eating without anything eaten, thus not abiding in the world. "For those who give, there is no great blessing, no small blessing; not for benefit, not for loss." This fifth section clarifies the field of merit. If Kāśyapa attains the view of equality, then he can externally teach the Dharma of equality, enabling donors to also have an equal mind, not calculating blessings as great or small, or their own loss or gain. Another explanation: Great and small refer to the other person; loss and gain refer to Kāśyapa. If the field is superior, the donor gains great blessing; if the field is inferior, they gain small blessing. Obtaining food brings five benefits; not obtaining means no five benefits, thus loss. So loss and gain refer to Kāśyapa. "This is truly entering the Buddha's path, not relying on the Śrāvaka way." This sixth section concludes. As explained above, one attains the view of equality, called truly entering the path, then able to benefit self and others, thus not relying on the Śrāvaka way. "Kāśyapa! If you eat like this, you do not eat people's offerings in vain." Having true realization, one is a good field, thus not wasting people's offerings. "At that time, World-Honored One! Hearing these words, I gained what I had never had before, and immediately toward all Bodhisattvas deeply gave rise to a respectful mind. I also thought: This layman, his eloquence and wisdom are able to be like this; who would not set their mind on Anuttarā Samyaksaṃbodhi! From that time on, I no longer urge people to practice the Śrāvaka or Pratyekabuddha paths." This third section clarifies Kāśyapa's benefit. There are five sentences: first, praising the Dharma as rare. Second, gaining respect for superior people. "I also thought" is the third, praise. "This layman" means a lay Bodhisattva. Vimalakīrti's fame spreads far; who would not set their mind on enlightenment? Fourth, urging to set the mind on enlightenment. "From that time on" is fifth, Kāśyapa establishing his great resolve. "Therefore, I am not qualified to go and inquire about his illness." The refusal has three parts: statement, explanation finished; now the conclusion.

「佛告須菩提：汝行詣維摩詰問疾」。此第四命須菩提。就文為二：初命、次辭不堪。須菩提者，此云空生，亦名善吉。以其生時，舍內寶藏眾物悉空，故名空生。父母謂是不祥，召相師問之。相師云：「唯善唯吉。」稱為善吉。相傳有經云須菩提是東方世界青龍陀佛，影嚮釋迦身為弟子。然五百之流，德非遍備，各有偏能，但稱第一。善吉等，有供養者，能與現報。既有異德，故名四大聲聞。「須菩提白佛言：世尊！我不堪任詣彼問疾」。此第二辭不堪。就文亦三，謂標、釋、結。此初標也。「所以者何？憶念我昔入其舍從乞食」。此第二釋不堪。就文為五：第一辨不應來而來，為被呵之由；第二明能呵之旨；第三明不應去而去，重辨被呵之由；第四重明能呵之旨；第五時眾得道。此初文也。善吉所以入淨名舍者，凡有二義：一者迦葉捨富從貧、善吉捨貧從富，悉乖平等之道，故俱被呵。所以捨貧從富乞者，富貴嬌恣，不慮無常，今雖快意，後必貧苦；愍其迷惑，仍就乞食。以不得越家故，次入其舍，因被呵也。二者居士德重淵遠、言不漏機，五百應真莫敢窺其庭者。善吉自謂深入空理、觸言無滯，故徑造其舍，從彼乞食。然當其入觀，則心順法相；及其出俗，即情隨事轉。致失招屈，良由此也。「時維摩詰取我鉢盛滿飯」。此第二明能呵之旨。就文為四：一就食平等門，呵其於食不等。從「不斷婬怒癡」下，第二就解惑平等門，呵其解惑不等。「不見佛」下，第三就內外平等門，呵其內外不等。從「若須菩提入諸邪見」，第四就邪正平等門，呵其邪正不等。所以知有四門者，以後結句云「乃可取食」也。四門次第者，初正乞食，故就食平等門呵之。其斷惑得解，堪為福田，則解惑不等，故就解惑平等門呵之。惑滅解生，猶見佛聞法。不殖外道，便謂內外為二，故就內外平等門呵之。猶殖佛世，離彼邪緣、具諸功德，則謂邪正相乖，故就邪正平等門呵之。此初門也。取鉢滿飯而呵者，若空鉢，則居士有悋惜之嫌；若與鉢，恐持而去，不盡言論之勢。又空鉢故不得生論，與便不得論。又不空鉢，明菩薩為施主；不與鉢，明二乘非福田。「謂我言：唯須菩提！若能於食等者諸法亦等，諸法等者於食亦等，如是行乞乃可取食」。於食等者，唯富人之妙食，等貧捨之穢弊。若能於此麁妙食等，則於諸法亦等。若能達萬法皆等，則能於食亦等。得此等心，則是福田，乃可取食。若爾，不應捨貧而從富也。若捨貧從富，則於食不等，便無等，非是福田，不應取食。故進退無答也。「若須菩提不斷婬怒癡亦不與俱」。此第二就解惑平等門呵。善吉所謂理唯二轍：一者斷於三毒；二者與俱，謂凡夫也。斷三毒，即二乘也。今聞不斷不俱，理出意外，故茫然不解。大士體三毒本自不有，故不與俱；今亦不無，稱為不斷。又若有三毒，可斷可俱。不性無二，何所俱斷？又三毒屬人，可論俱斷；竟自無人，誰俱斷耶？又三毒屬心，可論俱斷；求屬無從，則斷俱義宗。具如《正觀論》說。「不壞於身而隨一相」，上就有餘涅槃，今約無餘涅槃也。小乘人謂壞五陰身，然後隨涅槃一相。今明身即一相，不待壞而隨也。又上據煩惱，今約報障，呵意同前。「不滅癡愛，起於明脫」。身本從癡愛而生，故次言也。如《涅槃》云「生死本際，凡有二種：一者無明、二者有愛。」小乘人謂以癡障智，故滅癡而得明；以愛縛心，故愛解而心脫。故《涅槃》云「明與無明，愚者謂二」也。大士觀癡愛其即是明脫，不待滅癡愛而起明脫。是故智者了達其性無二，無二之性即是實性。問：是何等明脫？答：三明內漏盡明也。斷非想惑，九解脫中第九解脫也。「以五逆相而得解脫，亦不解不縛」。上明煩惱與報，今次說業平等也。小乘明五逆業必定受報，無得解脫理故。今明窮重之縛，等於極上之解。所以然者，五逆實相即是解脫，豈有縛解之異耶？「不見四諦非不見諦」。得於明脫要由見諦，故次泯之。境智本空，故不見四諦；四倒寂然，故非不見諦。又求四無從，故不見諦；亦無不四，故非不見。又見四諦者，二乘人也；不見四諦，凡夫人也。今大士異之，是故俱斥非得果。聲聞由見四諦，是故得果；既非見諦，故非得果。又不見能得之人及所得法，故非得果。「非凡夫法非離凡夫法，非聖人非不聖人」。聲聞謂以得果故捨凡成聖，故次非之也。又上來就法泯見，此約人平等也。既以非得果，應是凡夫；而求，故非凡夫。而凡夫不得凡夫實性，即是聖法，故非離凡夫。以不離凡法，故非聖人；而道過三界，故非不聖也。「雖成就一切法而離諸法相」。此句是總結上來諸義也。雖成就一切法者，善吉既其是人。人必成就於法。謂不捨上來所明一切惡法，而復具足善法，故云成就一切法也。而實未曾善惡，故云離諸法相。「乃可取食」。若能備如上說，則得平等觀，便是福田，故應取食。此一章訖，所以結也。「若須菩提不見佛不聞法」。此第三內外平等門也。二乘謂捨凡得聖，要由見佛聞法，故次泯之。善吉自謂見佛聞法，而言不見聞者，其言似反、其理實順。若有佛可見，則是有見，故不見佛。若有法可聞，則是有聞，故非聞法。今明無佛可見乃名見佛，無法可聞始是聞法，蓋是斥二乘之有，是故說無。既知佛非有，即識佛非無。如是五句，無所受著，始是法身。如斯五悟，名見佛也。《正觀論》云「邪見深厚者，則說無如來。如來寂滅相，分別有亦非。」彼外道六師、聲聞人謂以見佛聞法，即事佛為師、己為弟子，異於外道。故次泯之。釋迦出世，正值六師。但六師不同，凡有三部，合十八人，足能仁為十九也。第一部，自稱一切智，裸形苦行。第二部，得五神通。第三部，誦四韋陀。又言：此三即修、思、聞三慧，從於三慧生十八人。今文所明，是初部也。富蘭那，迦葉母姓也，富蘭那字也，此是邪見外道，撥無萬法。末伽梨拘賒梨子，末伽梨字也，拘賒梨其母名也，其人計眾生苦樂不由因得，自然而有。刪闍夜毘羅胝子，刪闍夜字也，毘羅胝其母名也，其人謂道不須求，逕生死劫數苦盡自得，如轉縷丸於高山，縷盡自止，何假求耶？阿耆多翅舍欽婆羅，阿耆多字也，翅舍欽婆羅麁弊衣名也，其人著弊衣拔髮、五熱炙身，以苦行為道，謂今身受苦、後身常樂也。迦羅鳩馱迦旃延，姓迦旃延，字迦羅鳩馱，其人應物起見，人問有耶、答言有，人問無耶、答言無，故執諸法亦有亦無。尼犍陀若提子等，尼犍陀其出家總名也，如佛法出家名沙門。若提子母名也。其人謂罪福苦樂本有定因，要必須受，非行道所能斷也。「是汝之師，因其出家。彼師所墮，汝亦隨墮」。此令善吉事外道為師，因其出家，現世受其邪法，故墮邪見；後世同其果報，故墮惡道。「乃可取食」。若不同六師，則見邪正相異，便無等觀，故不堪受食。若知六師即是法身，以同六師即是同法身，便得等觀，乃可受食。問：云何六師即是法身？答：四句求六師不得，六師即是實相，得即是法身。故云「觀身實相，觀佛亦然」。又同六師，方是不同六師；若不同六師，即是同六師也。所以然者，同六師則體邪即正，故是正見人；若不同六師，即謂邪正為二，名邪見人。故同六師也。「若須菩提入諸邪見不到彼岸」。此第四邪正平等門。既同六師，則入諸邪見。邪見明無道因，不到彼岸辨無滅果。既入邪見，則不到彼岸，所以作此呵者。或人以邪見正見為二、彼岸與此岸相乖，故今明入諸邪見，邪正不二、彼此無別。若達不二平等，邪見即是正見、不到彼岸即是到也。「住於八難不得無難」。既入邪見，便生八難，不得無難處也。所以作是呵者，善吉自謂離於八難，以得人身，離三惡道及長壽天；生閻浮提，離北欝單越；值於佛世，離佛前佛後；得於正道，離世智辨聰；六根具足，離生盲聾。此則謂難與無難為二。今明達乎八難即是無難，故今住於八難，既不見難亦不見於無難，故云不得無難也。同於煩惱，離清淨法、入邪見、在八難者，便無結不起。既無結不起，而離清淨法。所以作是呵者，善吉自謂異於煩惱、不離清淨法。故今明煩惱體性即是實相。若同煩惱，即是同於實相，離清淨法即是不離。「汝得無諍三昧，一切眾生亦得是定」。善吉自謂得無諍定、群生不得，欲以斯定為物福田。此則見自他為二、得不得殊。是故明善吉之與群生性常自一，曷為善吉獨得而群生不得乎？故今不得同得、得同不得，得不得不二、自他平等也。無諍三昧凡有二種：一者內順實相、二外不違物心，名無諍也。「其施汝者不名福田，供養汝者墮三惡道」。此明田非田不二、惡道善道體性無別。「為與眾魔共一手作諸勞侶，汝與眾魔及諸塵勞等無有異」。如世造物，所作不異，名為一手。是一手則共為塵勞伴侶，故與魔不異。然魔與實相不異，既與魔一不異則與實相不異。「於一切眾生而有怨心、謗諸佛、毀於法、不入眾數，終不得滅度。汝若如是，乃可取食」。此明怨親平等、毀譽一貫，出入無別、得不得均，若能如是乃可取食。第四章竟，故復結也。「時我，世尊！聞此茫然，不識是何言，不知以何答，便置鉢欲出其舍」。此第三明不應去而去，重致被呵之由。不識是何言、不知是何答者，且據一章釋之。如善吉自謂見佛聞法，淨名云不見佛不聞法，觀其言則似逆、詳其意則大順。所以然者，若不見佛乃是見佛，若有佛可見則不見佛。而善吉聽其言則逆、思其理則不反，故不識是何言、不知以何答。「而日時既至，便捨鉢而欲去」。生公云「既其有屈，便應輸鉢，故置之欲出。」然善吉與眾人，凡有兩意一同：諸人識其言，而善吉不識，此一異也。眾人被詰生喜，而善吉聞呵便懼，此二異也。五百聲聞悉不能答，斯一同也。問：何故善吉獨招二失？答：五百應真不敢詣淨名之室，善吉自謂深入空理、觸言無滯，徑造其舍從彼乞食。是以此章言切而旨深，故招斯咎也。「維摩詰言：唯須菩提！取鉢勿懼」。此第四重被呵也。懼無答而置鉢，即復著於言相。今欲解其此滯，令得取鉢，故先言取鉢勿懼。「於意云何？如來所作化人，若以是事詰，寧有懼不？我言：不也。維摩詰言：一切諸法如幻化相，汝今不應有所懼也。所以者何？一切言說不離是相」。淨名以幻化質於善吉，凡有三事：一者聽人如化、二者謂諸法如化、三者言說如化。汝既解空第一，應知如化，以化聽化寧有懼哉？不離是相者，言說不離幻相也。「至於智者不著文字，故無所懼。所以者何？文字性離，無有文字，是則解脫；解脫相者，則諸法也」。上明文字如化，此辨文字則是解脫，並不應著也。「維摩詰說是法時，二百天子得法眼淨」。此第五明時眾得道。就理而言，善吉來去皆弘道益物。以其來故，得說平等無礙之道，破二乘有礙之心；以其去故，因說幻化法門，斥凡夫保執有法，令二百天子得法眼淨。初章則言違理順，故時眾未解；後章則言理並順，故聞而即悟。「故我不任詣彼問疾」。此第三結不堪也。

The Buddha said to Subhuti: "Go to Vimalakirti and ask after his health."

This is the fourth such instruction concerning Subhuti. The passage is divided into two parts: first, the instruction, and second, Subhuti’s refusal, saying he cannot go.

*Subhuti* means "born in emptiness" or also "auspicious." Because when he was born, all the treasures and possessions in his house disappeared, he was called "born in emptiness." His parents thought this was a bad omen, so they consulted a fortune-teller. The fortune-teller said, "Only good fortune and auspiciousness," so they called him "Auspicious." According to tradition, there is a sutra saying Subhuti is the Buddha Qinglongtuo of the eastern world, who manifested as a disciple of Shakyamuni as a spiritual influence. Among the five hundred arhats, their virtues were not complete, each had a special skill, and they were called "foremost." Subhuti and others could give immediate rewards to those who made offerings to them. Because they had such special virtues, they were called the Four Great Voice-Hearers.

"Subhuti said to the Buddha: 'World-Honored One, I am not worthy to go and ask after his health.'"

This is the second part, the refusal. This passage is also divided into three parts: statement, explanation, and conclusion. This is the initial statement.

"Why is that? I remember once I entered his house to beg for food."

This is the second part, the explanation of the refusal. This passage is divided into five sections: First, discussing that going where one should not go is the reason for being rebuked; second, explaining the meaning of the rebuke; third, discussing that leaving when one should not leave is again explaining the reason for being rebuked; fourth, again explaining the meaning of the rebuke; fifth, the people of that time attaining the Way.

This is the first section. There were two reasons Subhuti entered Vimalakirti's house: First, because Mahakashyapa avoided the rich to beg from the poor, while Subhuti avoided the poor to beg from the rich, both deviating from the Way of equality, so both were rebuked. Why did Subhuti avoid the poor and beg from the rich? Because the rich and noble are arrogant and spoiled, not considering impermanence; although they are happy now, they will suffer poverty later. He pitied their delusion, so he went to beg from them. Because he could not skip any house, he entered Vimalakirti's house in turn, and thus was rebuked. Second, the layman Vimalakirti's virtue was profound and far-reaching, his words never missed the mark; none of the five hundred arhats dared to look into his courtyard. Subhuti thought he had deeply penetrated the principle of emptiness and his speech was unimpeded, so he went directly to his house to beg for food. But when he entered contemplation, his mind was in accord with the Dharma-nature; when he emerged into the ordinary world, his emotions followed events. Thus he lost his ground and was humiliated.

"Then Vimalakirti took my bowl and filled it with rice."

This is the second section, explaining the meaning of the rebuke. This passage is divided into four parts: First, through the teaching of equality regarding food, he rebuked Subhuti for being unequal regarding food. From "not cutting off lust, anger, and delusion" onwards is the second part, through the teaching of equality regarding liberation from delusion, he rebuked Subhuti's inequality regarding liberation and delusion. From "not seeing the Buddha" onwards is the third part, through the teaching of equality regarding internal and external, he rebuked Subhuti's inequality regarding internal and external. From "if Subhuti enters into all false views" is the fourth part, through the teaching of equality regarding right and wrong, he rebuked Subhuti's inequality regarding right and wrong. We know there are four teachings because the concluding line says, "then you may take food." The order of the four teachings is as follows: First, as he was begging for food, the rebuke was through the teaching of equality regarding food. Because Subhuti eliminated delusion and attained liberation, he considered himself a worthy field of merit, which is inequality regarding delusion and liberation, so the rebuke was through the teaching of equality regarding delusion and liberation. Because he eliminated delusion and attained understanding, he still saw the Buddha and heard the Dharma. Not cultivating non-Buddhist paths, he considered internal and external as two, so the rebuke was through the teaching of equality regarding internal and external. Still being born in the time of the Buddha, avoiding false conditions and possessing all virtues, he considered right and wrong as opposites, so the rebuke was through the teaching of equality regarding right and wrong.

This is the first teaching. Why did Vimalakirti take the bowl and fill it with rice before rebuking him? If the bowl had been empty, the layman would have been suspected of being stingy. If he had given the bowl, Subhuti might have left with it, not allowing for a full discussion. Also, with an empty bowl, no discussion could arise; giving the bowl allowed for discussion. Also, having a non-empty bowl signifies that the bodhisattva is the giver; not giving the bowl signifies that the two vehicles are not fields of merit.

"He said to me: 'Subhuti, if you are equal regarding food, then you are equal regarding all dharmas. If you are equal regarding all dharmas, then you are equal regarding food. Begging in this way, you may take food.'"

"Equal regarding food" means being equal towards the wonderful food of the rich and the coarse, spoiled food of the poor. If you can be equal towards this coarse and wonderful food, then you are equal towards all dharmas. If you can realize that all things are equal, then you can be equal regarding food. Having this equal mind, you are a field of merit, and then you may take food. If so, you should not avoid the poor and beg from the rich. If you avoid the poor and beg from the rich, then you are not equal regarding food, you lack equality, you are not a field of merit, and you should not take food. Thus, there is no answer, whether you go forward or backward.

"Subhuti, if you neither cut off lust, anger, and delusion nor are associated with them..."

This is the second teaching, concerning equality regarding liberation and delusion. Subhuti thought the principle had only two paths: first, cutting off the three poisons; second, being associated with them, which refers to ordinary people. Cutting off the three poisons is the teaching of the two vehicles. Now, hearing "neither cut off nor be associated," a principle beyond his expectations, he was completely confused. The great bodhisattva realizes that the three poisons are fundamentally non-existent, so he is not associated with them; yet they are also not non-existent now, so they are called "not cut off." Also, if the three poisons existed, they could be cut off or associated with. Since their nature is non-dual, what is there to be associated with or cut off? Also, if the three poisons belonged to a person, one could discuss being associated with or cut off; but ultimately there is no person, so who is associated with or cut off? Also, if the three poisons belonged to the mind, one could discuss being associated with or cut off; but seeking their belonging has no source, so the meaning of cutting off or being associated is void. This is fully explained in the *Treatise on the Middle Way*.

"Not destroying the body and yet following the one mark." Above, he spoke of the remainderless nirvana; now he speaks of the nirvana without remainder. People of the Small Vehicle believe that after destroying the five aggregates of the body, one then follows the one mark of nirvana. Now he explains that the body itself is the one mark; it does not wait to be destroyed to be followed. Also, above he relied on afflictions; now he relies on the retribution of the body. The meaning of the rebuke is the same.

"Not extinguishing deluded attachment, and giving rise to illumination and liberation." The body is born from deluded attachment, so he speaks of this next. As the *Nirvana Sutra* says, "The origin of birth and death is of two kinds: first, ignorance; second, attachment to existence." People of the Small Vehicle believe that delusion hinders wisdom, so they extinguish delusion to attain illumination; and attachment binds the mind, so they are freed from attachment to attain liberation. Thus the *Nirvana Sutra* says, "Illumination and ignorance, the ignorant consider them as two." The great bodhisattva observes that deluded attachment itself is illumination and liberation; he does not wait to extinguish deluded attachment to give rise to illumination and liberation. Therefore, the wise person understands that their nature is non-dual, and the non-dual nature is the true nature.

Question: What kind of illumination and liberation is this? Answer: It is the third illumination, the illumination of the extinction of defilements. It is the cutting off of the delusions of the realm of neither perception nor non-perception, the ninth of the nine liberations.

"Attaining liberation through the mark of the five heinous crimes, and also being neither liberated nor bound." Above, he discussed afflictions and retribution; now he discusses the equality of karma. The Small Vehicle teaches that the karma of the five heinous crimes will certainly bring retribution, and there is no possibility of liberation. Now he explains that the most severe bonds are equal to the most supreme liberation. Why is that? The true mark of the five heinous crimes is exactly liberation; how could there be a difference between bondage and liberation?

"Not seeing the four truths, yet not not seeing the truths." Attaining illumination and liberation necessarily comes from seeing the truths, so he next negates duality. Since the object and the wisdom are originally empty, he does not see the four truths; since the four distortions are tranquil, he is not not seeing the truths. Also, seeking the four truths has no source, so he does not see the truths; yet there is also no non-four-truths, so he is not not seeing. Also, those who see the four truths are people of the two vehicles; those who do not see the four truths are ordinary people. Now, the great bodhisattva is different from both, so he denounces both. "Not attaining the fruit." The voice-hearers, because they see the four truths, attain the fruit; since he does not see the truths, he does not attain the fruit. Also, he does not see a person who can attain or a Dharma that is attained, so he does not attain the fruit.

"Not the Dharma of ordinary people, yet not separate from the Dharma of ordinary people; not a sage, yet not not a sage." The voice-hearers believe that by attaining the fruit, they abandon the ordinary and become sages, so he next negates this. Also, above he negated duality regarding dharmas; this is about equality regarding persons.

「佛告富樓那彌多羅尼子：汝行詣維摩詰問疾」。此第五次命富樓那。前四大聲聞已訖，今次三藏法師。就文二：初命、二辭。什公云「富樓那，是其字也，此言滿。彌多羅尼，其母名也，此云知識。合母名為字也。」真諦三藏云「所以稱滿者，其家無兒，禱祀江神。母因夜夢見珍器盛滿珍琦，遂入腹內。明旦向天述之。天云：『汝當生兒，智慧滿足。』因名滿也。彌多羅。此云慈行。四韋陀論有慈行品，其母誦之，故名慈行。合言之，名滿慈子。」十弟子內，法師第一，善解阿毘曇。「富樓那白佛言：世尊！我不堪任詣彼問疾」。此第二辭不堪。就文亦三：標、釋、結。此初標也。「所以者何？憶念我昔於大林中，在一樹下為諸新學比丘說法」。此第二釋不堪。為四：一明被呵之由、二明能呵之旨、三明時眾蒙利、四滿慈受屈。此初文也。什公云「近毘耶離，有園林，林內有水，水名獼猴池。園內有僧房，是毘耶離三精舍之一也。」富樓那於內為新學說法也。「時維摩詰來謂我言：唯富樓那！先當入定觀此人心，然後說法」。此第二能呵之旨。就文為四：一呵其違欲說法、二呵其違根說法、三重呵違欲說法、四重呵違根。欲謂現在欲樂，根謂過去根原。此初文也。前當入定觀此人心者，小乘智有限礙，又不能常定。凡所觀察，在定則見、出定不見。又定力深者，見眾生根極八萬劫；定力淺者，數身而已。此新學比丘根在大乘，而為說小法，故謂其入定也。「無以穢食置於寶器」。穢食是小法，寶器為大機也。「當知是比丘心之所念，無以琉璃同彼水精」。比丘心大，汝須知之。琉璃是玉，水精為賤珍。不應明大心之琉璃，同小乘之水玉，宜善識小大二機之優降也。「汝不能知眾生根源，無得發起以小乘法。彼自無瘡，勿傷之也」。此第二呵其違根原。初句直呵不知根，無得發起，呵其授小法也。大乘根性人，喻若無瘡，說小損大，如傷之也。「欲行大道，莫示小徑。無以大海內於牛跡，無以日光等彼螢火」。此第三重明不識機欲。菩薩有三事：一求佛道、二度眾生、三修萬行。大機如欲行大道，小乘法如小徑，此為求佛道設喻也。遍度眾生，心如大海；小乘法同牛跡。迴大入小，如內也。肇公云「大物當置於大處，曷為迴龍象於兔徑、注大海於牛跡？」此合釋二句也。遍修萬行，心如日月；起小乘行，心如螢火。明昧既懸，不應等也。「富樓那！此比丘久發大乘心，中忘此意。如何以小乘法而教導之？我觀小乘智慧微淺，猶如盲人不能分別一切眾生根之利鈍」。此第四重呵不識根原。智慧微淺，小乘智體；不能分別，小乘智用也。「時維摩詰即入三昧，令此比丘自識宿命，曾於五百佛所殖眾德本，迴向阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」。是第三明得益。就文為四：初入三昧、二得本心、三為說法、四悟不退轉。此即二教雙益也。二教，謂口意兩業，二益淺深不同。此初教也。「即時豁然還得本心。於是諸比丘稽首禮維摩詰足」。此初益也。問：淨名入三昧，云何能令比丘知宿命？答：《持地論》明菩薩宿命通有六種：一自知宿命、二知他宿命、三令他知己宿命、四令他自知宿命、五令他知他宿命、六令彼所知眾生展轉相知。今是第四令他自知也。「時維摩詰因為說法」。此第二教也。「於阿耨多羅三藐三菩提不復退轉」。此第二益也。「我念聲聞不觀人根，不應說法」。第四受屈。「是故不任詣彼問疾」。不堪有三，標、釋已，今總結也。

The Buddha said to Purna-Maitrayaniputra, "You go to Vimalakirti and inquire about his illness." This was the fifth time the Buddha sent someone. The four great voice-hearers had already been sent, and now it was the turn of the master of the Tripitaka. The text has two parts: first, the command; second, the refusal. Master Kumarajiva says, "Purna is his given name, meaning 'Full.' Maitrayani is his mother's name, meaning 'Knowledge.' Combining the mother's name with his own forms his full name." Master Paramartha says, "The reason he is called 'Full' is that his family had no son and prayed to the river god. His mother dreamed that a precious vessel filled with jewels entered her womb. The next morning she told the heavens, and a voice said, 'You will bear a son with complete wisdom.' Hence he was named 'Full.' Maitrayani means 'Practice of Loving-Kindness.' Among the four Vedas there is a section on loving-kindness practice, which his mother recited, so she was named 'Loving-Kindness.' Together, his name means 'Son of Full Loving-Kindness.'" Among the ten disciples, he was foremost in teaching and skilled in explaining the Abhidharma. Purna said to the Buddha, "World-Honored One, I am not able to go and inquire about his illness." This is the second part, the refusal. The text also has three sections: statement, explanation, and conclusion. This is the opening statement. "Why? I recall that in the past, in a great forest, I was teaching Dharma to newly ordained monks beneath a tree." This is the second section, explaining the refusal, in four parts: first, the reason for being rebuked; second, the content of the rebuke; third, the benefit to the assembly; fourth, Purna's acceptance of the rebuke. This is the first part. Master Kumarajiva says, "Near Vaishali there was a park with a pool called the Monkey Pool. Inside the park were monks' quarters, one of the three meditation centers in Vaishali." Purna was teaching the new monks there. "At that time, Vimalakirti came and said to me, 'Purna! First enter meditation and observe the minds of these people, then teach them the Dharma.'" This is the second section, the content of the rebuke. It has four parts: first, rebuking him for teaching against their present desires; second, rebuking him for teaching against their capacities; third, again rebuking him for teaching against their desires; fourth, again rebuking him for teaching against their capacities. Desires refer to present enjoyment, capacities refer to past roots. This is the first part. Entering meditation first to observe their minds—the small vehicle's wisdom is limited and cannot maintain constancy in meditation. What is observed in meditation is seen, but not after leaving it. Moreover, those with deep meditative power see sentient beings' capacities for up to eighty thousand kalpas; those with shallow power see only a few lifetimes. These new monks had great vehicle roots, yet he taught them lesser Dharma, so Vimalakirti told him to enter meditation. "Do not put filthy food in a precious vessel." Filthy food is the lesser Dharma; the precious vessel is the great potential. "Know what is in this monk's mind; do not equate crystal with glass." This monk's mind is great—you must know this. Glass is jade, crystal is a lesser gem. One should not equate the glass of a great mind with the lesser gem of the small vehicle. You should properly recognize the difference in worth between the great and small capacities. "You cannot perceive the roots of sentient beings, so do not teach them the lesser vehicle. They have no wound themselves; do not harm them." This is the second rebuke, regarding not recognizing their capacities. The first line directly rebukes him for not knowing their roots and for teaching them the lesser Dharma. A person with great vehicle nature is like one without wounds; teaching the lesser Dharma harms their great potential, like wounding them. "If you wish to travel the great path, do not show the small road. Do not pour the great ocean into a cow's footprint, do not compare sunlight to a firefly's glow." This is the third, again clarifying his failure to recognize their capacities and desires. A bodhisattva has three concerns: first, seeking Buddhahood; second, liberating sentient beings; third, cultivating all practices. The great capacity is like one who wishes to travel the great path; the lesser Dharma is like the small road—this is a metaphor for seeking Buddhahood. Liberating all beings is a mind like the great ocean; the lesser Dharma is like a cow's footprint. Turning from great to small is like pouring the ocean into a footprint. Master Zhao says, "Great things should be placed in great places. Why turn dragons and elephants toward a rabbit's path, or pour the great ocean into a cow's footprint?" This jointly explains the two lines. Cultivating all practices is a mind like the sun and moon; undertaking small vehicle practices is a mind like a firefly. The difference in brightness is vast; they should not be equated. "Purna! This monk has long developed the great vehicle mind but has since forgotten it. How can you teach him with the lesser vehicle? I observe that the wisdom of the small vehicle is shallow, like a blind person who cannot distinguish the sharp or dull capacities of all sentient beings." This is the fourth, again rebuking his failure to recognize capacities. Shallow wisdom refers to the essence of small vehicle wisdom; inability to distinguish refers to its function. "At that time, Vimalakirti entered samadhi and caused this monk to recall his past lives, seeing that he had planted roots of virtue under five hundred Buddhas and had dedicated them to perfect enlightenment." This is the third section, showing the benefit. The text has four parts: first, entering samadhi; second, recovering his original mind; third, teaching the Dharma; fourth, realizing non-retrogression. This shows the dual benefit of two kinds of teaching—speech and mind—with two levels of benefit, shallow and deep. This is the first teaching. "Immediately he was awakened and recovered his original mind. Then all the monks bowed at Vimalakirti's feet." This is the first benefit. Question: How did Vimalakirti's samadhi enable the monk to know his past lives? Answer: The Treatise on the Stages of Bodhisattva Practice explains that a bodhisattva's past-life knowledge has six aspects: first, knowing one's own past lives; second, knowing others' past lives; third, causing others to know one's own past lives; fourth, causing others to know their own past lives; fifth, causing others to know other's past lives; sixth, causing beings to know each other's past lives through mutual understanding. This is the fourth—causing another to know their own past lives. "Then Vimalakirti taught him the Dharma." This is the second teaching. "He no longer retreated from perfect enlightenment." This is the second benefit. "I think that voice-hearers who do not observe people's capacities should not teach the Dharma." This is the fourth part, accepting the rebuke. "Therefore I am not able to go and inquire about his illness." The three refusals—statement, explanation, and now conclusion—are complete.

「佛告摩訶迦旃延：汝行詣維摩詰問疾」。此第六命旃延。就文有二：初命、二辭。摩訶為大，迦旃延是南天竺婆羅門姓，而以本姓為稱，別名扇繩。其父早亡，母戀不嫁，如繩繫扇，風吹不動，故名扇繩。十弟子內，論議第一，善解修多羅。佛在世時，造《昆勒論》十萬偈三百二十萬言。「迦旃延白佛言：世尊！我不堪任詣彼問疾」。此第二辭不堪。就文為三，謂標、釋、結。此初文也。「所以者何？我念昔者佛為諸比丘略說法要，我即於後敷演其義，謂無常義、苦義、空義、無我義、寂滅義」。此第二釋不堪。就文為三：初明被呵之由、二述能呵之旨、三時眾得益。此初文也。略說有二：謂有為、無為。此二攝一切法，故名為略。又言略者，佛常略說有為法無常、苦、空、無我，無為法寂滅不動。此二總一切法盡，故言略也。佛但此略說於前，旃延廣敷後。五門與三印，有離合不同。開無常印為苦、開無我為空、無為即是寂滅，故五門也。不異三印，但是小乘。以大乘無我唯在生死，不得云一切法無我；五門則具通小大。「時維摩詰來語我言：唯迦旃延！無以生滅心行說實相法」。此第二明能呵之旨。就文為兩：初總呵、二別呵。此初文也。佛了無常是無生無滅，即是實相。而迦旃延謂無常是生滅法故。佛以無生滅心說無常，即無生滅心說實相也。迦旃延聞生滅法，起生滅心而說無常，是以生滅心行說實相法。在言雖同，其心則異，故迦旃延被呵，佛無咎也。「迦旃延！諸法畢竟不生不滅是無常義」。此第二別釋五門，呵旃延之失，即是用大乘心斥小也。無常是名也，二家同辨無常之名，但無常之義大小乘則異。旃延以生滅釋無常義，淨名以無生滅釋無常義。所以然者，佛說無常之名，凡有二義：一者破常、二不著無常故。今離二邊，悟入中道。如肇公云「言其無常者，明其無有常，非謂有無常。」以無有常，故離外道邊；非謂有無常，則離小乘邊。斯則破病既周、教圓理足，名為滿字。而迦旃延說無常但得破常，猶有生滅則住無常，故破病未周、教非圓足，稱為半字。今淨名還申佛意，偏對旃延一邊，故說不生不滅是無常義。問：不生不滅是破無常以不？答：佛說無常名，令離常邊，復令離生滅邊，始是顯無常義。旃延雖領無有常，猶謂有生滅，即知一不知二。今欲令其更得進悟，故偏說不生不滅是無常義，非破無常也。問：如《毘曇》、《成實》等云「生滅是無常」，云何言不生不滅是無常？答：此皆旃延被呵之例。龍樹〈觀三相品〉破生破滅者，斯淨名之流。若言生滅是無常者，則生在其初、滅在其後，初既無滅則一無為常。若一無為常，則一無非有為。又若一無不滅，則終亦不滅，便是常住。若初有生即有滅者，則滅害於生，生不得起。以義推之則生非實有，生非實有是則無生。既其無生，何有滅？故知不生不滅是其理實。不應言生滅定是無常義也。問：旃延何故言生滅是無常義？答：小乘未明法空，故不得言無常是不生滅也。如《成論》有法空，而彼謂無常是空之初門，不得有是於空，故不得說不生不滅是無常義也。「五受陰洞達空無所起是苦義」。有漏五陰受染生死，名為受陰。小乘以受陰起則眾苦生為苦義；大乘通達受陰內外常空、本自無起，誰生苦者？此真苦義也。問：若五陰空，此則無苦，云何是苦義？答：類如上說。佛明無常去常，非謂是無常；佛說苦以除樂，非謂有苦，蓋是如來說苦之義意也。旃延但領無樂，稱在有苦，故不識佛說苦義。今偏對之，故言本無五陰是苦之義，不言空即是苦而空猶有苦。無常亦然。「諸法究竟無所有是空義」。此句對小乘二藏：一者毘曇人以內無人為空，而猶在有法，此非究竟空；大乘則人法並空，始為究竟空義。二者《成論》明人法並空，有去而空在，此亦非究竟空義；大乘則空有俱泯，始是究竟空也。「於我無我而不二是無我義」。有所得人破我而住無我，則見我與無我為二。今對斥此病，明我無我不二。「法本不然今則不滅是寂滅義」。前四句辨生死，今次說涅槃。小乘謂生死然盡，故有寂滅涅槃；大乘明生死本不燃、今則不滅，始是寂滅義也。「說是法時，彼諸比丘心得解脫」。此第三明時眾得悟。若除常而住無常，雖於常得脫，而為無常所縛。若如淨名所辨，除常不住無常，蕭然無寄，名得解脫。「故我不任詣彼問疾」。第三結不堪。

The Buddha said to Mahākātyāyana, "Go and inquire about Vimalakīrti's illness." This is the sixth assignment, to Kātyāyana. The passage has two parts: first, the assignment; second, the refusal. "Mahā" means great, and Kātyāyana was a Brahmin clan from South India, known by his family name, with the personal name "Fan Sheng" (Fan Rope). His father died early, and his mother, out of love for her son, refused to remarry. Like a rope tying a fan that the wind cannot move, she was steadfast—hence the name "Fan Sheng." Among the Ten Disciples, he was foremost in debate and skilled at explaining the sutras. During the Buddha's lifetime, he composed the *Kailun Treatise* in one hundred thousand verses totaling 3.2 million words. Kātyāyana said to the Buddha, "World-Honored One, I am not worthy to go and inquire about his illness." This is the second part, the refusal. The passage has three sections: statement, explanation, and conclusion. This is the first, the statement.

"Why so? I recall that in the past, the Buddha briefly explained the essentials of the Dharma to the monks, and I later expanded upon their meaning—namely, the meaning of impermanence, suffering, emptiness, non-self, and quiescence." This is the second part, the explanation of his refusal. The passage has three sections: first, the reason for being reprimanded; second, the content of the reprimand; third, the benefit to the assembly. This is the first, the reason. "Briefly explained" refers to two categories: the conditioned and the unconditioned. These two encompass all phenomena, hence called "brief." Furthermore, "brief" means the Buddha often summarized the conditioned as impermanent, suffering, empty, and non-self, and the unconditioned as quiescent and unmoving. These two cover all dharmas completely, hence "brief." The Buddha gave this brief teaching first, and Kātyāyana expanded upon it afterward. The five gates and the three seals have differences in combination. The seal of impermanence is opened into suffering, and non-self into emptiness; the unconditioned is quiescence itself—hence five gates. They do not differ from the three seals, but this is only the Lesser Vehicle. In the Greater Vehicle, non-self applies only to the realm of birth and death, and one cannot say all dharmas are without self; the five gates, however, encompass both the lesser and greater vehicles.

Then Vimalakīrti came and said to me, "Kātyāyana! Do not explain the true nature of reality with a mind of arising and ceasing." This is the second part, the content of the reprimand. The passage has two sections: first, a general reprimand; second, a specific reprimand. This is the first, the general one. The Buddha understood impermanence as neither arising nor ceasing, which is the true nature of reality. But Kātyāyana saw impermanence as a phenomenon of arising and ceasing. So when the Buddha explained impermanence with a mind free of arising and ceasing, he was explaining the true nature of reality through that same mind. Kātyāyana, hearing of arising and ceasing, generated a mind of arising and ceasing and then explained impermanence—thus he explained the true nature of reality with a mind of arising and ceasing. The words are the same, but the mind differs; therefore Kātyāyana was reprimanded, while the Buddha was blameless.

"Kātyāyana! That all dharmas ultimately neither arise nor cease—this is the meaning of impermanence." This is the second part, the specific explanation of the five gates, reprimanding Kātyāyana's error—that is, using the Greater Vehicle mind to correct the lesser vehicle. "Impermanence" is a name; both schools discuss the name of impermanence, but the meaning of impermanence differs between the greater and lesser vehicles. Kātyāyana explained impermanence through arising and ceasing, while Vimalakīrti explained it through neither arising nor ceasing. Why so? The Buddha's teaching of the name "impermanence" has two purposes: first, to refute the view of permanence; second, to avoid attachment to impermanence itself. Thus, one transcends both extremes and awakens to the Middle Way. As Master Zhao said, "Speaking of impermanence clarifies that there is no permanence—it does not mean there is impermanence." Because there is no permanence, one transcends the extreme of externalist views; because it does not mean there is impermanence, one transcends the extreme of the lesser vehicle. Thus, the sickness is fully cured, the teaching is complete, and the principle is fulfilled—this is called the "full word." But Kātyāyana's explanation of impermanence only refuted permanence, still holding to arising and ceasing, thus dwelling in impermanence. His cure was incomplete, his teaching not full—this is called the "half word." Now Vimalakīrti restores the Buddha's intention, specifically addressing Kātyāyana's one-sided view, and thus says neither arising nor ceasing is the meaning of impermanence.

Question: Does "neither arising nor ceasing" refute impermanence? Answer: The Buddha taught the name "impermanence" to lead one away from the extreme of permanence and also from the extreme of arising and ceasing—only then is the meaning of impermanence revealed. Kātyāyana, though grasping that there is no permanence, still held that there is arising and ceasing—knowing one but not the other. Now, to help him advance further, Vimalakīrti specifically says neither arising nor ceasing is the meaning of impermanence—not to refute impermanence itself.

Question: Texts like the *Vibhāṣā* and *Satyasiddhi* say "arising and ceasing is impermanence"—how can you say neither arising nor ceasing is impermanence? Answer: These are all examples of Kātyāyana being reprimanded. Nāgārjuna's chapter on the three characteristics refutes arising and ceasing—such is the lineage of Vimalakīrti. If arising and ceasing were impermanence, then arising comes first and ceasing later. If at the beginning there is no ceasing, then one part would be unconditioned and permanent. If one part is permanent, then one part is not conditioned. Moreover, if one part never ceases, then ultimately nothing ceases, and everything would be permanent. If arising at the start entails ceasing, then ceasing would destroy arising, and arising could not occur. By this reasoning, arising is not truly existent. Since arising is not truly existent, there is no arising. With no arising, how could there be ceasing? Therefore, we know that neither arising nor ceasing is the true principle. One should not say arising and ceasing is definitively the meaning of impermanence.

Question: Why did Kātyāyana say arising and ceasing is the meaning of impermanence? Answer: The lesser vehicle had not yet clarified the emptiness of dharmas, so it could not say impermanence is non-arising and non-ceasing. For example, the *Satyasiddhi* has dharma-emptiness, but it regards impermanence as the first gate to emptiness and cannot equate it with emptiness itself; hence it could not say neither arising nor ceasing is the meaning of impermanence.

"The five aggregates of clinging, thoroughly penetrated as empty and never arising—this is the meaning of suffering." The contaminated five aggregates, stained by birth and death, are called the aggregates of clinging. The lesser vehicle holds that when the aggregates arise, suffering arises—that is the meaning of suffering. The greater vehicle penetrates the aggregates as intrinsically empty, both internally and externally, never arising from the beginning—who then produces suffering? This is the true meaning of suffering. Question: If the aggregates are empty, then there is no suffering—how can this be the meaning of suffering? Answer: This is like the earlier explanation. The Buddha taught impermanence to remove permanence, not to assert impermanence; he taught suffering to remove pleasure, not to assert suffering. This is the intent of the Buddha's teaching on suffering. Kātyāyana only grasped the absence of pleasure and remained attached to the existence of suffering, so he failed to understand the Buddha's meaning. Now Vimalakīrti specifically addresses this, saying the original non-existence of the aggregates is the meaning of suffering—not that emptiness is suffering or that emptiness still contains suffering. The same applies to impermanence.

"All dharmas, ultimately without anything at all—this is the meaning of emptiness." This sentence addresses two aspects of the lesser vehicle. First, the Abhidharma school holds that within a person there is no self, but still affirms the existence of dharmas—this is not ultimate emptiness. The greater vehicle empties both person and dharmas—only this is ultimate emptiness. Second, the *Satyasiddhi* clarifies the emptiness of person and dharmas, but removes existence while leaving emptiness—this too is not ultimate emptiness. In the greater vehicle, both emptiness and existence are utterly transcended—only this is ultimate emptiness.

"Not dwelling in self nor in non-self, without duality—this is the meaning of non-self." Those with attachments refute self and dwell in non-self, seeing self and non-self as two. To correct this sickness, Vimalakīrti clarifies that self and non-self are not two.

"Dharmas originally do not blaze, and now they do not cease—this is the meaning of quiescence." The previous four sentences addressed birth and death; now this one speaks of nirvana. The lesser vehicle holds that the blaze of birth and death must be extinguished, hence quiescent nirvana. The greater vehicle clarifies that birth and death never blazed from the beginning and do not cease now—only this is the meaning of quiescence.

"When this teaching was given, those monks' minds attained liberation." This is the third section, the benefit to the assembly. If one removes permanence but dwells in impermanence, one is liberated from permanence but bound by impermanence. If, as Vimalakīrti explained, one removes permanence without dwelling in impermanence, utterly free and unattached—this is called liberation. "Therefore I am not worthy to go and inquire about his illness." This is the third section, the conclusion of his refusal.

「佛告阿那律：汝行詣維摩詰問疾」。此第七次命那律。然三藏明之，應次命波離；但前二已明說法，今次辨神通，相間出也。就文為二：前命、次辭。阿那律者，此云如意，亦稱無貪，又名不滅，猶一義耳。八萬劫前曾供養辟支佛，所得善根于今不滅，故名不滅。果報稱心，為如意。師子頰王有四子，各有二兒，長子名淨飯，有二子，大名悉達、小名難陀。斛飯王有二子，大名調達、小名阿難。白飯王有二子，長名那律、小名摩訶男。甘露飯王有二子，長名跋提、次名提沙。師子頰王有女，名甘露味，唯有一子，名尸陀羅，那律即佛之從弟，天眼第一。所以得天眼者，曾一時佛邊聽法睡眠，佛呵之：「咄哉！云何如螺蜯子？」那律慚愧，不眠多日，遂便失眼。問耆婆治之，耆婆云：「眠是眼食，久時不眠便餓死，不可復治。」那律因修得天眼。「阿那律白佛言：世尊！我不堪任詣彼問疾」。此第二辭不堪。就文為三，謂標、釋、結。此初標也。「所以者何？憶念我昔於一處經行，時有梵王名曰嚴淨，與萬梵俱放淨光明來詣我所，稽首作禮問我言：幾何阿那律天眼所見？我即答言：仁者！吾見此釋迦牟尼佛三千大千世界如觀掌中菴摩勒果」。此第二次釋不堪。文開四別：一明被呵之由、二述能呵之旨、三那律受屈、四梵王發心。此初文也。問曰：《智度論》云「大羅漢但見二千世界」，今云何言三千？答：任常力即見二千，加功用見三千也。又天眼力但見二千，願智之力則見三千。菴摩勒果者，形似檳榔，食之除風，冷時手執此果，故即以為喻。「時維摩詰來謂我言：唯阿那律！天眼為作相耶、無作相耶？假使作相，則與外道五通等；若無作相，即是無為，不應有見」。此第二述能呵之旨。前定兩開，次雙結二難。作相、無作相，即雙定也。作色方圓相而見，名為作相；不作色方圓相，名無作相也。又釋三界果報身，大請諸根從結業起，名有為有作相。法身異之，謂無為無作相。結兩難者，若作方圓相而見則用外道，以外道亦作方圓而見故也。若不作方圓而見則無方圓，便是無法，不應有見。「世尊！我時默然」。此第三那律受屈。欲言作相，同外道；欲言無作，復是無為。以不達會通，故失對於當時、受屈於二難。「彼諸梵聞其言，得未曾有，即為作禮而問曰：世孰復有真天眼者」。此第四時眾得益。又有三句：初問、次答、三發心。此初問也。那律天眼第一，既屈淨名，自斯已外孰有真天眼者？「維摩詰言：有佛世尊真天眼，常在三昧，悉見諸佛國，不以二相」。此第二淨名答。初總答云有也、次出有真天眼之人即佛世尊也。下以三門釋真天眼：一常在定內見，異小乘定外見，此顯靜散無二也。次悉見諸佛國，此明小乘所見近、諸佛所見遠，此二異也。不以二相者，能所宛然而無眼色，謂有不礙無；雖無眼色而不失能所，所謂無不礙有。有不礙無，故不同外道；無不礙有，故不同無為。正答上二難也。又就眼見明不二見。宛然而無見，雖無見而無所不見，名為不二。什公云「不作精麁二相，名為不二。」「於是嚴淨梵王及其眷屬五百梵天，皆發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心，禮維摩詰足已，忽然不現」。此第三發心。梵王既聞外道二乘非真，天眼者唯佛世尊，故捨彼聖凡發佛心也。「故我不任詣彼問疾」。此第三結不堪也。

The Buddha said to Aniruddha, "Go and inquire about Vimalakirti's illness." This was the seventh time the Buddha sent someone. According to the Tripitaka, the next person to be sent should have been Upali; but since the previous two instances had already illustrated the aspect of teaching the Dharma, this one now illustrates supernatural powers, alternating between the two. The passage is divided into two parts: first the sending, then the refusal.

Aniruddha means "as one wishes," and is also called "without greed," or "never extinct"—these are all different names for the same meaning. Eighty thousand kalpas ago, he made offerings to a Pratyekabuddha, and the wholesome roots from that act have never been extinguished up to the present, hence the name "Never Extinct." His karmic rewards are just as he wishes, hence "As One Wishes."

King Simhahanu had four sons, each with two children. The eldest son, King Shuddhodana, had two sons: the elder, Siddhartha, and the younger, Nanda. King Dronodana had two sons: the elder, Devadatta, and the younger, Ananda. King Shuklodana had two sons: the elder, Aniruddha, and the younger, Mahanama. King Amritodana had two sons: the elder, Bhaddiya, and the younger, Tishya. King Simhahanu also had a daughter named Amritarasa, who had one son named Shitara. Aniruddha was the Buddha's cousin and was foremost in celestial vision.

How did he attain celestial vision? Once, while listening to the Dharma at the Buddha's side, he fell asleep. The Buddha scolded him: "Shame on you! How can you be like a snail sleeping in its shell?" Feeling deeply ashamed, Aniruddha forced himself to stay awake for many days and eventually lost his sight. He sought treatment from Jivaka, who said, "Sleep is the food of the eyes. If eyes go without food for too long, they starve to death. This can no longer be cured." Because of this, Aniruddha cultivated and attained celestial vision.

Aniruddha said to the Buddha, "World-Honored One, I am not capable of going to inquire about his illness." This second section is the refusal. The passage is structured in three parts: statement, explanation, and conclusion. This is the initial statement.

"Why not? I recall that once, while I was practicing walking meditation in a certain place, a Brahma king named Sublime Purity, accompanied by ten thousand Brahma deities, all radiating pure light, came to where I was. He paid respects with a bow and asked me, 'Aniruddha, how far does your celestial vision reach?' I answered, 'Venerable sir, I see the entire three-thousand-great-thousand world of Shakyamuni Buddha as clearly as if I were looking at an amalaka fruit in the palm of my hand.'"

This second section explains the refusal. The passage opens with four points: first, the reason for being reproached; second, the content of the reproach; third, Aniruddha's concession; fourth, the Brahma king's aspiration. This is the first point.

Question: The Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom says that great Arhats see only two thousand worlds. Why does it say three thousand here? Answer: With ordinary power, they see two thousand worlds; with extraordinary effort, they see three thousand. Also, with celestial vision alone, they see two thousand; with the power of wisdom-born wish, they see three thousand. The amalaka fruit is shaped somewhat like a betel nut. Eating it dispels wind. When cold, one might hold this fruit in hand, so it is used as a metaphor.

"At that time, Vimalakirti came to me and said, 'Aniruddha, is your celestial vision conditioned or unconditioned? If it is conditioned, then it is the same as the five superknowledges of the non-Buddhists. If it is unconditioned, then it is nirvana itself, and there should be no seeing at all.'"

This is the second point, presenting the content of the reproach. First, the twofold question is posed; then the twofold difficulty is concluded. "Conditioned" and "unconditioned" constitute the twofold question. Seeing through conditioned forms of color, shape, and size is called "conditioned." Not seeing through such forms is called "unconditioned." Another interpretation: the karmic reward body of the three realms, with all its faculties arising from bondage-creating karma, is called conditioned and formed. The Dharma body is different—it is called unconditioned and formless.

The twofold difficulty is this: if one sees through formed shapes, then one falls into the same category as the non-Buddhists, because non-Buddhists also see through formed shapes. If one sees without formed shapes, then there are no shapes at all—there is nothing there, and there should be no seeing.

"World-Honored One, at that time I remained silent." This is the third point, Aniruddha's concession. If he said his vision was conditioned, it would be the same as the non-Buddhists; if he said it was unconditioned, it would be nirvana itself. Unable to reconcile the two, he lost the debate and was silenced by the twofold difficulty.

"When those Brahma deities heard these words, they experienced something they had never felt before. They bowed and asked, 'Is there then anyone who possesses true celestial vision?'" This is the fourth point, the benefit received by the assembly at that time. Three sentences follow: first, the question; second, the answer; third, the arising of aspiration. This is the first sentence.

Since Aniruddha, foremost in celestial vision, had been silenced by Vimalakirti, who else beyond this could possess true celestial vision?

"Vimalakirti said, 'There is: the Buddha, the World-Honored One, possesses true celestial vision. He is always in samadhi, sees all Buddha lands, and does so without duality.'" This is the second part, Vimalakirti's answer. The general answer is, "There is." Then he identifies the one with true celestial vision: the Buddha, the World-Honored One. The following three points explain true celestial vision: first, he sees always within samadhi, unlike the lesser vehicle practitioners who see outside of samadhi—this shows that stillness and activity are non-dual. Second, he sees all Buddha lands—this shows that lesser vehicle practitioners see what is near, while Buddhas see what is far—these are two distinctions. "Without duality" means that subject and object are fully present, yet there is no eye or form—the existent does not obstruct the non-existent. And although there is no eye or form, subject and object are not lost—the non-existent does not obstruct the existent. The existent not obstructing the non-existent, it differs from the non-Buddhists. The non-existent not obstructing the existent, it differs from the unconditioned. This directly answers the above twofold difficulty.

Additionally, in terms of seeing, it illuminates non-dual seeing. Fully present yet without seeing; without seeing yet seeing everything—this is called non-duality. Master Kumarajiva says, "Not making the two distinctions of coarse and fine is called non-duality."

"Then the Brahma king Sublime Purity, together with his retinue of five hundred Brahma deities, all aroused the aspiration for anuttara samyak sambodhi. They bowed at Vimalakirti's feet, and suddenly vanished." This is the third part, the arising of aspiration. Having heard that neither non-Buddhists nor lesser vehicle practitioners possessed true celestial vision, and that only the Buddha did, they set aside their former attachments to both ordinary and holy states and aroused the aspiration for Buddhahood.

"Therefore, I am not capable of going to inquire about his illness." This is the third part, concluding the refusal.

「佛告優波離：汝行詣維摩詰問疾」。此第八次命波離。就文為二：初命、次辭不堪。優波離，是王舍城賤人，翻為上首，是諸釋子剃毛師。後諸釋種詣佛出家，而波離隨遂。將列佛所，諸釋脫寶衣服翫及所乘象，悉以與之。波離心念：「諸釋豪貴如此尚捨出家。我何為住？」以所得物安置樹下、繫象著樹，作如是言：「諸有取者，吾悉施之。」遂往佛所。諸釋問其來意，波離具答所由。諸釋大喜，即便請佛，屈前度之。「此人本我近事。若後出家，我喜輕蔑。屈佛前度，我當敬事。」佛即前度，諸釋子等同為作禮。是時大地震動，空內聲嘆言：「諸釋子嬌慢山崩。」波離出家已後，善解毘尼，以其世世誓願持律，是故於今持律第一。「優波離白佛言：世尊！我不堪任詣彼問疾」。第二辭不堪。就文為三，謂標、釋、結。此初標也。「所以者何？憶念昔者有二比丘，犯律行以為恥，不敢問佛，來問我言：唯優波離！我等犯律，誠以為恥，不敢問佛。願解疑悔，得免斯咎。我即為其如法解說」。此第二釋不堪。就文為三：一明被呵之由、二述呵之旨、三明時眾得益。就文有二：一明比丘犯罪、二辨波離依法解說。犯律行者，一比丘似犯婬戒，次比丘似犯殺人戒，事別出經。有二比丘林間修道。一比丘疲勞，仰臥眠熟。忽有女人，以女形置一比丘上，而比丘不淨流出。眠覺始覺，而向同伴述之。彼比丘云：「可伺求此女人來也。」而彼女忽來，比丘便往逐之。女人怖走，遂墮坑死。此似犯殺，故云犯律行也。誠以為恥者，夫有罪之人，一懼後世受苦、一懼現在所作。不敢問佛者，佛既尊重，而慚愧復深，故不敢問。又佛明見法相，決斷罪則永出清眾，故不敢問佛。波離既是持律之上，仍從質所疑也。我即為其如法解說者，此第二波離依律篇聚定罪輕重，未得為其詳說過之法也。「時維摩詰來謂我言：唯優波離！無重增此二比丘罪」。此第二明能呵之旨。就文為二：一明波離錯教、二辨淨名善治。比丘見有身心，一封著也；復言有罪可起、心生疑悔而欲滅之，二封著也；而波離定其罪相則封著彌厚，封著彌厚則罪垢轉增，三封著也。今前誡之，故云無重增此二比丘罪。「當直除滅，勿擾其心」。此第二明淨名善治。就文為三，謂標、釋、結。此初標也。波離有二失：一者不說實相，於理成迂；二不應大機，於緣為曲。今對斯二事，還明兩法：一說實相，稱乎理實，名直除滅。二應大機，故不機其心。「所以者何？彼罪性不在內、不在外、不在中間」。此第二釋善治。有四門：初明罪空、次辨心空、三舉況、四廣釋。夫罪之生由因緣有，求其實性不在三處，不在三處則見罪空便悟理實，悟理實則發生正觀，正觀既生則煩惱斯滅。煩惱尚滅，罪豈在哉？不在內者，不在我心也。若在我心，不應待外也。不在外者，不在他身也。若在於他，不應由我起也。不在中間者，合自他求罪不得也。又識為內、塵為外、根為中間，而罪不在此三處。又罪因為內、罪緣為外、合內外為中間也。「如佛所說，心垢故眾生垢、心淨故眾生淨」。此第二次辨心空。夫罪由心起，則心是罪根；然心本尚空，罪未寧有？故逆尋其本也。凡有四句：初引佛誠言心垢故眾生垢者，夫心有垢染則眾生受累，眾生受累便是垢累眾生。垢義既爾，淨義亦然。「心亦不在內、不在外、不在中間」。第二句明心空也。心若在內，心應不由外境。心若在外，內應無心。既非二處，豈在中間？「如其心然，罪垢亦然」。第三句以本顯末也。諸法亦然者，心之與罪二事既空，萬法紛紛皆由心起。在心既空，故諸法亦爾。「不出於如」。心之與罪謂內法空，諸法亦爾謂外法空也。內之與外所以空者，良由不出於如，以如是空之異名，故內外亦爾。又非破拆內外故便空，良由內外本來是如，所以空也。「如優波離心相得解脫時，寧有垢不」。此第三舉況。凡有三句：一問、二答、三況。聲聞初成羅漢，證第九解脫道，爾時唯有淨心、無有垢染。今欲以其類眾生心，故前定其言也。「我言：不也」。此第二波離正答。明證果之時唯淨無垢也。「維摩詰言：一切眾生心相無垢，亦復如是」。第三舉況類也。小乘謂羅漢在觀之時心則無垢，眾生未能斷惑心則有垢，故今持二乘之無類凡夫之有也。「唯優波離！妄想是垢，無妄想是淨；顛倒是垢，無顛倒是淨；取我是垢，不取我是淨」。此第四廣釋。上雖明罪空，而惑者生疑：若罪非有，何得大小經律說眾生起罪？故今釋云：妄想故見有罪，是故餘經明有。今據理實，所以云無。妄想、顛倒、取我三科異者，橫謂分別，名為妄想；無而謂有，翻背理實，稱為顛倒；所以顛倒，由根本取我。又妄想是八妄，如《地持》說；顛倒是三倒；取我是眾見根本。「優波離！一切法生滅不住、如幻如電，諸法不相待，乃至一念不住」。上明罪由妄有，今辨妄有非有，亦是釋妄有義。不相待者，此不明無長短等相待，但辨諸法無常。前心不待後心生竟然後方滅，以諸法不住，亦生即滅也。無住則如幻，不實所以空。「諸法唯妄見，如夢如炎、如水中月、如鏡中像，以妄想生」。上明外法不住，此辨內心妄見，俱明空義。夫以見妄故，則所見不實，是故為空。上二喻取其速滅，此四喻喻其妄想。「其知此者是名奉律」。淨名善治有三，標、釋已竟，今總結歎也。行順律法，故名奉律，此歎行也。「其知此者是名善解」。知罪實相，名為善解，此嘆解也。自有解律而不行、自有行律而不解，故雙嘆也。問：今明罪空，云何是奉律？答：律名毘尼，此言善治，謂自能治三毒，亦能治於眾生。令知罪空，真善治也。「於是二比丘言：上智哉！是優波離所不及，持律之上不能說。我答言：自捨如來，未有聲聞及菩薩制其樂說之辨。其智慧明達為若此也。時二比丘疑悔即除，發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心，作是願言：令一切眾生皆得是辨」。此第三明時眾得益。文有三句：第一比丘雙嘆、二波離雙答、三比丘雙益。初雙嘆者，上智哉，嘆淨名內智；持律之上而不能說，嘆淨名外辨。二波離雙答，初答外辨；其智慧明達，次答內智。比丘雙益者，疑悔即除，謂惡滅也；發心，明善生也。「故我不任詣彼問疾」。第三總結不堪。

The Buddha said to Upāli, "Go and visit Vimalakīrti to inquire about his illness." This was the eighth time the Buddha dispatched someone. The text is divided into two parts: first, the command; second, Upāli's refusal, saying he was not worthy.

Upāli was a low-born man from Rājagṛha. His name means "foremost." He was the barber of the Licchavi princes. Later, when the Licchavi nobles came to the Buddha to renounce the world, Upāli followed them. As they approached the Buddha's dwelling, the nobles took off their precious clothes, ornaments, and even their elephants, and gave them all to Upāli. Upāli thought to himself, "These nobles, wealthy and honored as they are, still renounce everything to become monks. Why should I remain here?" So he placed the gifts under a tree, tied the elephants to the tree, and declared, "Whatever anyone takes from here, I give freely." Then he went to the Buddha. When the nobles asked why he had come, Upāli told them everything. The nobles were overjoyed and invited the Buddha to ordain him first. They said, "This man was our servant. If he becomes a monk after us, we might look down on him. But if the Buddha ordains him first, we will honor him." The Buddha ordained him first, and all the nobles paid him homage. At that moment, the earth trembled, and a voice in the sky proclaimed, "The mountain of the nobles' pride has crumbled." After becoming a monk, Upāli excelled in understanding the monastic discipline (Vinaya), for in life after life he had vowed to uphold the precepts. Thus, he became foremost in Vinaya.

Upāli said to the Buddha, "World-Honored One, I am not worthy to go and inquire about his illness." This is the second part, his refusal. The text here has three sections: statement, explanation, and conclusion. This is the opening statement.

"Why not? I remember that once two monks committed offenses against the precepts and felt deeply ashamed. They did not dare ask the Buddha, but came to me and said, 'Please, Upāli! We have broken the precepts and are truly ashamed. We do not dare ask the Buddha. Please help resolve our doubts and remorse, so we may be freed from this fault.' So I explained the Dharma to them according to the rules." This is the second part, explaining why he was unworthy. The text has three sections: first, the reason for being rebuked; second, the content of the rebuke; third, the benefit gained by the audience at that time. There are two parts: first, the two monks' offenses; second, Upāli's explanation according to the Dharma.

Regarding "committed offenses against the precepts," one monk seemed to have broken the precept against lust, and the other seemed to have broken the precept against killing. The details are given in the scriptures. Two monks were cultivating in the forest. One grew tired and lay down to sleep, falling into deep slumber. Suddenly a woman appeared and placed her body upon him, and he emitted impure fluid. When he woke, he realized what had happened and told his companion. The other monk said, "Let's find that woman when she comes." When the woman appeared, the monk chased after her. Frightened, she ran and fell into a pit and died. This seemed to be killing, hence "committing offenses against the precepts."

"Truly ashamed" means that those who have committed wrongs fear both future suffering and the exposure of their deeds. They "did not dare ask the Buddha" because the Buddha was so revered and their shame was so deep. Moreover, the Buddha clearly sees the true nature of all things, and if he judged their offense, they would be expelled from the pure assembly. So they did not dare ask. Since Upāli was foremost in Vinaya, they came to him with their doubts. "I explained the Dharma to them according to the rules" means that Upāli, following the categories and degrees of offenses in the Vinaya, assigned severity to their wrongdoings, but did not yet teach them the profound method of eradicating faults through realizing ultimate truth.

"Then Vimalakīrti came and said to me, 'Please, Upāli! Do not add further burden to these two monks' offenses." This is the second part, the content of the rebuke. The text has two sections: first, pointing out Upāli's mistaken teaching; second, showing Vimalakīrti's skillful remedy. The monks saw their bodies and minds as real—this was the first attachment. They also thought there was an actual offense that could be removed, and gave rise to doubt and remorse, wanting to eliminate it—this was the second attachment. Upāli, by fixing the nature of their offense, only thickened their attachment; the thicker the attachment, the greater the stain of guilt—this was the third attachment. So now he warns him, saying, "Do not add further burden to these two monks' offenses."

"You should directly remove their faults, without disturbing their minds." This is the second part, showing Vimalakīrti's skillful remedy. The text has three sections: statement, explanation, and conclusion. This is the opening statement. Upāli had two faults: first, he did not explain the true nature of reality, thus going against principle; second, he did not respond to their great potential, thus going against the circumstances. Against these two faults, he now teaches two methods: first, explaining reality as it is, which matches ultimate truth—this is "directly removing their faults." Second, responding to their great potential, hence "without disturbing their minds."

"Why? The nature of their offense is not inside, not outside, not in between." This is the second part, the explanation of the skillful remedy. There are four gates: first, explaining the emptiness of offense; second, explaining the emptiness of mind; third, a simile; fourth, a detailed exposition.

Offenses arise from causes and conditions. Seeking their true nature, they are found in none of the three locations. Not being in the three locations, one sees that offense is empty and awakens to reality. Awakening to reality gives rise to correct contemplation, and with correct contemplation, afflictions are extinguished. If afflictions are extinguished, how could offense remain?

"Not inside" means not within my mind. If it were in my mind, it would not depend on external conditions. "Not outside" means not in another's body. If it were in another, it would not arise from me. "Not in between" means that searching for offense by combining self and other yields nothing. Furthermore, consciousness is "inside," sense objects are "outside," and the sense faculties are "in between"—yet offense is not in any of these three. Also, the cause of offense is "inside," the conditions of offense are "outside," and the combination of both is "in between."

"As the Buddha said, 'When the mind is defiled, beings are defiled; when the mind is pure, beings are pure.'" This is the second part, explaining the emptiness of mind. Offense arises from the mind, so the mind is the root of offense. But if the mind itself is empty, how can offense exist? Thus, we trace back to its root. There are four statements here. First, the Buddha's true words: "When the mind is defiled, beings are defiled." When the mind has defilement, beings are afflicted; beings being afflicted means defilement burdens beings. The meaning of purity is the same.

"The mind also is not inside, not outside, not in between." This is the second statement, the emptiness of mind. If the mind were inside, it would not depend on external objects. If the mind were outside, there would be no mind inside. Since it is in neither of these two places, how could it be in between?

"Just as the mind is, so is the stain of offense." This is the third statement, using the root to illuminate the branches. "All dharmas are also thus": since both mind and offense are empty, and all the myriad phenomena arise from the mind, and the mind is empty, so all dharmas are likewise empty.

"They do not go beyond Suchness." Mind and offense represent the emptiness of inner dharmas; all dharmas likewise represent the emptiness of outer dharmas. The reason both inner and outer are empty is precisely because they do not go beyond Suchness. Suchness is another name for emptiness, so inner and outer are also thus. Moreover, it is not that by destroying inner and outer they become empty; rather, inner and outer are originally Suchness, hence they are empty.

"Upāli, when the mind attains liberation through realization of its true nature, is there any defilement in it?" This is the third part, a simile. There are three statements: first, a question; second, an answer; third, the application. When a hearer (śrāvaka) first attains arhatship, he realizes the ninth liberation path. At that time there is only pure mind, no defilement. Now, wishing to use this as an analogy for the minds of all beings, he first establishes this point.

I said, "No." This is the second statement, Upāli's answer, confirming that at the moment of attaining the fruit, there is only purity and no defilement.

Vimalakīrti said, "The minds of all beings are free of defilement, just the same." This is the third statement, the application of the simile. Smaller vehicles hold that when arhats are in contemplation, their minds are pure, while ordinary beings who have not cut off delusion have defiled minds. So now he uses the purity of the two vehicles to illustrate that ordinary beings are fundamentally the same.

"Please, Upāli! Delusion is defilement; absence of delusion is purity. Inversion is defilement; non-inversion is purity. Grasping at self is defilement; not grasping at self is purity." This is the fourth part, the detailed exposition. Earlier he clarified that offense is empty, but the confused may wonder: if offense does not truly exist, why do all the sutras and vinayas speak of beings committing offenses? So now he explains: it is because of delusion that one sees offense. Therefore, other sutras speak of it as existing. Now, according to ultimate reality, it is said to be non-existent. Delusion, inversion, and grasping at self—these three categories differ: distorted discrimination is called delusion; affirming what does not exist, turning against ultimate reality, is called inversion; the root of inversion is grasping at self. Also, delusion refers to the eight types of false thinking, as taught in the *Bodhisattvabhūmi*; inversion refers to the three inversions; grasping at self is the root of all views.

"Upāli! All dharmas arise and cease without abiding, like illusions, like lightning. Dharmas do not wait upon each other, not even for a single moment." Earlier he showed that offense exists because of delusion. Now he shows that what is delusively existent is not truly existent, also explaining the meaning of delusive existence. "Not waiting upon each other" does not mean the absence of relative comparisons like long and short; rather, it clarifies that all dharmas are impermanent. The previous moment of mind does not wait for the later moment to arise and then cease; because dharmas do not abide, they cease as soon as they arise. Being without abiding, they are like illusions, unreal, and hence empty.

"All dharmas are only false perceptions, like dreams, like mirages, like the moon in water, like images in a mirror; they arise from deluded thinking." Earlier he showed that external dharmas do not abide; this shows that inner mind is false perception, and both together clarify emptiness. Because one's perception is deluded, what is perceived is not real; hence it is empty. The first two similes illustrate swift extinction; the next four illustrate deluded perception.

"One who knows this is called one who upholds the Vinaya." Vimalakīrti's skillful remedy had three parts: the statement and explanation have been given; now this is the concluding praise. Conducting oneself in accord with the discipline is called upholding the Vinaya—this praises practice.

"One who knows this is called one who truly understands." Knowing the real nature of offense is called true understanding—this praises insight. Some understand the Vinaya but do not practice it; some practice it but do not understand it. Hence, both are praised together. Question: If offense is empty, how is this upholding the Vinaya? Answer: The Vinaya is called *vinaya*, meaning "good governance"—one can govern one's own three poisons and also govern beings. Teaching them to know that offense is empty is true good governance.

"Then the two monks said, 'What supreme wisdom! This is beyond Upāli's reach. Even the foremost in upholding the precepts could not express this.' I replied, 'Apart from the Tathāgata, no hearer or bodhisattva can surpass his eloquence. His wisdom is brilliant and penetrating to this degree.' At that time, the two monks' doubts and remorse were immediately removed, and they aroused the aspiration for supreme, perfect enlightenment, making this vow: 'May all beings attain such eloquence.'" This is the third part, showing the benefit gained by the audience at that time. The text has three sections: first, the two monks' twofold praise; second, Upāli's twofold response; third, the monks' twofold benefit. The first twofold praise: "What supreme wisdom!" praises Vimalakīrti's inner wisdom; "Even the foremost in upholding the precepts could not express this" praises his outer eloquence. Upāli's twofold response: first he responds to the outer eloquence; "His wisdom is brilliant and penetrating" then responds to inner wisdom. The monks' twofold benefit: doubts and remorse were removed—this is the extinction of evil; arousing the mind—this is the arising of good.

"Therefore, I am not worthy to go and inquire about his illness." This is the third part, the concluding statement of his unworthiness.

「佛告羅睺羅：汝行詣維摩詰問疾」。此第九次命羅睺羅。就文為二：初命、次辭不堪。羅睺者，此言覆障，謂六年在胎，為胎所覆障，因以為名。所以有羅睺者，諸相師四月八日來白淨飯王言：「太子若今夜不出家，明日七寶自至，為轉輪王。」父王夜增其伎樂，菩薩欲心內發，耶輸陀羅其夜有身。淨居天悲而言：「菩薩貪著五欲，眾生誰度之？」內觀出家，後成道夜始生羅睺。所以六年在胎者，《智度論》云「羅雲過去為王，六日飢餓仙人，故招此報。」又餘經云「由塞鼠穴，受斯果也。」羅睺，亦名宮生。悉達出家而生羅睺，諸釋謂非佛子，欲燒殺之。耶輸抱子立誓，俱投於火，而化成蓮華。諸釋云：「真宮生也。」因以為名。「羅睺羅白佛言：世尊！我不堪任詣彼問疾」。第二辭不堪。就文為三，謂標、釋、結。此初標也。「所以者何？憶念昔時毘耶離諸長者來詣我所，稽首作禮，問我言：唯羅睺羅！汝佛子，捨轉輪王位出家為道。其出家者有何等利？我即如法為說出家功德之利」。此第二釋不堪。就文為三：一被呵之由、二能呵之旨、三明時眾得益。初文為二：一長者子問、二羅雲答。捨轉輪王位者，佛不出家當為金輪聖王，王四天下。羅雲不出家，當為鐵輪王，王一天下。一天下地及虛空，各十由旬鬼神屬之，為其給使。羅雲所以出家者，佛成道竟，還至本國，羅雲年始六歲。如來明日至，變千比丘悉如佛形，羅雲直往佛所，摩其頂，明日歸精舍，勅身子、目連度之。初出家後，喜多暴口，形詔於人。佛一時約勅，於斯永斷，相罵不瞋，佛嘆其忍辱持戒密行第一。諸長者子所以問者，見羅睺所捨至重，未聞其所得，是故問也。我即為如法說出家利者，依《出家功德經》，有人殺三千世界眾生，有人救之得脫。有人挑三千世界眾生眼，有人治之得差。其出家福，多彼救治，功德相應。為說此利也。「時維摩詰來謂我言：羅睺羅！不應說出家功德之利」。此第二能呵之旨。就文為二：初呵羅云所說、次淨名辨出家之利。羅什云「羅雲受屈，其旨有四：一不見人根，應非其藥。二出家功德無量，而說之有限。三即是實相，而以相說之。四出家本為實相涅槃，羅云不說其本。」吉藏謂家有二種：一者形家，謂父母妻子；二者心家，即是煩惱。諸長者子無出形家之義，有出心家之義，而羅云雖嘆出形家，於事無益；若說出心家，則便有利。而不應說而說、應說而不說，則是漏機，所以受屈。「所以者何？無利無功德是為出家。有為法者可說有利有功德。夫出家者為無為法，無為法中無利無功德」。此第二得名說出家法。諸長者子正以有得為懷，謂有人能出、有家可出，家為過罪、出有功德，此皆有所得心，即是有為法，悉名為家。維摩破著心，故讚無為法。無為是果、出家為因，果既無為，因豈有著？若能蕭然無寄，始是出家。「羅睺羅！出家者無彼無此亦無中間」。在俗為此、出家為彼、出家方便名為中間，今並忘之，即出家也。「離六十二見處於涅槃」。既忘彼此兩間，復離諸見，便處涅槃果。「智者所受、聖所行處」。地前菩薩依教生解名為智者，信順此法是名為受。登地會於正理稱之為聖，聖心遊之故云行也。「降伏眾魔、度五道」。經云「一人出家，魔宮皆動」，始動魔宮、終心降伏，既降伏四魔，必超度五道。凡夫能出四趣，不能出天道。出家求滅，則五道斯度。「淨五眼、得五力、立五根，不惱於彼」。二乘出家雖度五道，不能淨五眼；大乘離俗，能淨五眼。五眼有二：一約五人有五，人有肉眼、天有天眼、二乘慧眼、菩薩法眼、佛佛眼。一人具五者，見彰內為肉眼、見障外為天眼、照實相為慧眼、照二乘法滅名為法眼、照於佛性兼無法不知名為佛眼。今論後五，故名為淨。信、進、念、定、慧為五，此五在鈍根人心為根，在利根人心為力。若據一人，則始終為異。在家有妻子財產，若遇因緣必惱於彼。出家則道超事外，惱因自息，故云惱於彼。「離眾雜惡、摧伏外道」。在俗行善，由雜不善；出家求道，道既純淨，行分不雜也。出家不為摧物而諸惡自消，猶如日出不期滅闇而闇自滅也。「超越假名」。經說有四：一生死是假名、涅槃非假名。生死是浮虛幻偽，所以是假；涅槃真實，故非是假。二者涅槃是假、生死非假。涅槃無名，強為立名，所以是假；生死本是名相之法，非強立名，是故非假。三者俱是假。以生死涅槃是因緣相待，故是假也。如《華嚴》云「生死涅槃，二俱是虛妄」。四二俱非假。癈名就法，法體皆如，如內絕言，故非假稱。今就初門，明生死是假名、得涅槃故超出也。「出淤泥、無繫著」。出假名，離生死果；出淤泥，離生死因。在家沒愛泥、外道出家沒見泥，今明真出家俱離愛見，非但離生死之愛見，亦無繫著於道法。「無我所、無所受、無擾亂」。所以無繫著者，由無我所故也。受之言取，取有四種：欲取、我取、戒取、見取。今無此四取也。若內有四取，必有擾亂；以心無所取，故無擾亂。「內懷喜、護彼意，隨禪定、離眾過」。出家之人有三種喜：一者有現世功德，自然豫欣。二者後得涅槃，心常歡悅。三者不憂不喜，心無依著，則真淨妙喜也。又能將順眾生，不乖逆其意，故言護彼意。隨禪定者，戒能折伏煩惱令其勢微，禪定能遮使惑不起，智慧能滅畢竟無餘。今持戒清淨則結薄心靜，與禪相順，故言隨也。「若能如是，是真出家」。若能不違上說，是真出家。總結之也。「於是維摩詰語諸長者子：汝等於正法中宜共出家。所以者何？佛世難值」。此第三明時眾出益。凡有四句：初淨名勸出家、二長者不敢違佛制、三淨名重勸發心、四長者受旨。此初文也。淨名知其不得出家，而欲令其發心，故有此勸耳。「諸長者子言：居士！我聞佛言：父母不聽，不得出家」。此第二答也。律云「有人詣僧坊，諸比丘輒度之。其父母大愁苦，訴淨飯王。淨飯王云：『太子無令我知，輒私出家。吾愁苦。自令已去，父母不聽，不得出家。』以是事白佛，佛制戒云：若父母不聽，不得。趣度之者，得吉羅罪。」「維摩詰言：然。汝等便發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心，是即出家，是即具足」。此第三文也。所以勸發心者，彰其形雖繫於二親，而心超於三界，則是出於心家。既出心家，則身口無眾惡，便是具足戒也。「爾時三十二長者子皆發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心」。此第四文也。諸長者子既以有礙不形出家，而聞在家有出心家之理，故欣然從之。「故我不任詣彼問疾」。此第三總結。

The Buddha said to Rahula, "Go and visit Vimalakirti to ask after his illness." This was the ninth time someone was sent. The text has two parts: first the instruction, then Rahula's refusal.

Rahula means "obstruction" or "covering." He remained in the womb for six years, covered and obstructed by it, hence his name. Why was there a Rahula? The fortune-tellers came to King Shuddhodana on the eighth day of the fourth month and said, "If the prince does not leave home tonight, tomorrow the seven treasures will arrive by themselves and he will become a Wheel-Turning King." That night, the king increased entertainments and pleasures for him. The Bodhisattva's desire arose within, and Yasodhara conceived that very night. The god Shuddhavasa lamented, saying, "The Bodhisattva is attached to the five desires—who will save sentient beings?" He contemplated leaving home, and later, on the night of his enlightenment, Rahula was born.

Why was he in the womb for six years? The Treatise on Great Wisdom says, "In a past life, Rahula was a king who starved a hermit for six days, so he suffered this retribution." Another sutra says, "It was because he blocked a mouse hole that he received this fruit."

Rahula was also called "Palace-Born." When Siddhartha left home and Rahula was born, the Shakyas said he was not the Buddha's son and wanted to burn him alive. Yasodhara held the child and made a vow, then both leaped into the fire, which turned into a lotus flower. The Shakyas then said, "He is truly Palace-Born." Hence another name.

Rahula said to the Buddha, "World-Honored One, I am not worthy to visit him and ask after his illness." This is the second part, the refusal. It has three sections: announcing, explaining, and concluding. This is the announcement.

"Why? I recall that once, the elders of Vaisali came to where I was, bowed with their heads at my feet, and asked me, 'Rahula, you are the Buddha's son. You gave up the position of Wheel-Turning King to leave home and seek the Way. What benefits are there in leaving home?' I then explained to them, according to the Dharma, the merits and benefits of leaving home." This is the explanation of his incompetence, in three parts: the reason for being reproached, the meaning of the reproach, and the benefit gained by the audience at that time. The first part has two sections: the elders asked, and Rahula answered.

"Giving up the Wheel-Turning King position" means that if the Buddha had not left home, he would have become a Golden Wheel Sage King ruling over the four continents. If Rahula had not left home, he would have become an Iron Wheel King ruling over one continent. Over that continent and its sky, covering ten yojanas each way, spirits were his subjects and attendants.

Why did Rahula leave home? After the Buddha attained enlightenment, he returned to his native land when Rahula was six years old. The Tathagata, arriving the next day, transformed a thousand monks to all look like the Buddha. Rahula went straight to the Buddha, who touched his head. The next day Rahula returned to the monastery, and the Buddha instructed Shariputra and Maudgalyayana to ordain him. After first leaving home, he was fond of harsh speech and belittled others. Once the Buddha admonished him, and he permanently stopped. He did not get angry even when insulted, and the Buddha praised him as foremost in patience, precepts, and secret practice.

Why did the elders ask this? They saw how much Rahula had given up, but had not heard what he had gained, so they asked. "I then explained to them according to the Dharma the benefits of leaving home" means: According to the Sutra on the Merits of Leaving Home, if someone killed all beings in the three thousand worlds, and someone else saved them all, that would be great merit. If someone gouged out the eyes of all beings in the three thousand worlds, and someone healed them all, that would also be great merit. The merit of leaving home exceeds both of these. This is what I explained.

Then Vimalakirti came to me and said, "Rahula, you should not speak of the merits and benefits of leaving home." This is the second section, the meaning of the reproach, in two parts: first the reproach of Rahula's words, then Vimalakirti's explanation of the true benefit of leaving home.

Kumarajiva commented, "Rahula was refuted for four reasons: First, he did not see the capacities of his listeners and gave medicine that did not match their illness. Second, the merit of leaving home is immeasurable, but he described it as limited. Third, it is itself the ultimate reality, but he spoke of it in relative terms. Fourth, leaving home is fundamentally for ultimate reality and nirvana, but Rahula did not speak of its essence."

Jizang said, "There are two kinds of home: the physical home, meaning parents, wife, and children; and the mental home, which is afflictions. The elders' sons did not need to leave the physical home, but they did need to leave the mental home. Although Rahula praised leaving the physical home, that was of no benefit to them. If he had spoken of leaving the mental home, it would have been beneficial. He said what should not be said and did not say what should be said—this was a failure of insight, so he was refuted."

"Why? No benefit, no merit—that is what leaving home means. Things that are conditioned can be described as having benefit and merit. But one who leaves home pursues the unconditioned, and in the unconditioned there is no benefit and no merit." This is the second part, explaining the true meaning of leaving home.

The elders' sons were attached to acquisition—thinking there was a self that leaves, a home to leave, that the home was faulty and leaving had merit. All such thoughts are acquisitive minds, and thus are themselves "home." Vimalakirti broke through their attached minds, so he praised the unconditioned. The unconditioned is the fruit, and leaving home is the cause. If the fruit is unconditioned, how can the cause be attached? Only when one is utterly free, without any clinging, is that truly leaving home.

"Rahula, one who leaves home has no 'this,' no 'that,' and no 'middle.'" In worldly life is "this," leaving home is "that," and the expedient means of leaving home is called the "middle." Now all of these are forgotten—that is truly leaving home.

"Far from the sixty-two views, abiding in nirvana." Having forgotten this, that, and the middle, and departed from all views, one dwells in the fruit of nirvana.

"Received by the wise, practiced by the sages." Bodhisattvas before the first ground, who understand the teaching, are called "wise." Trusting and following this Dharma is called "receiving." Those on the first ground and above, who realize the true principle, are called "sages." The sage's mind moves within it, so it is called "practiced."

"Subduing all demons, crossing the five realms." The sutra says, "When one person leaves home, the demon palaces all tremble." First the demon palaces tremble, and ultimately the mind is subdued. Having subdued the four demons, one certainly transcends the five realms. Ordinary people can escape the four lower realms but cannot escape the heavenly realm. One who leaves home seeking cessation crosses all five realms.

"Purifying the five eyes, attaining the five powers, establishing the five faculties, without troubling others." Hearers and solitary realizers, though they leave home, cannot purify the five eyes. The Great Vehicle, in departing from worldly life, can purify them. The five eyes are of two kinds: first, by the five types of beings—humans have the flesh eye, gods have the divine eye, the two vehicles have the wisdom eye, bodhisattvas have the Dharma eye, and Buddhas have the Buddha eye. When one person possesses all five: seeing what is within is the flesh eye, seeing beyond obstruction is the divine eye, illuminating reality is the wisdom eye, illuminating the cessation of the two vehicles' teachings is the Dharma eye, and illuminating Buddha-nature while knowing everything is the Buddha eye. Here, the latter five are discussed, hence "purifying."

Faith, effort, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom are the five. In those of dull faculties, these are called "faculties"; in those of sharp faculties, "powers." For a single person, the difference is simply across time.

A householder has a wife, children, and property; if circumstances arise, one is bound to trouble others. One who leaves home goes beyond worldly affairs, and the causes of trouble naturally cease. Hence "without troubling others."

"Far from all mixed evil, overthrowing the heretics." A householder, even doing good, is mixed with evil. One who leaves home seeks the Way; since the Way is pure, practices are not mixed. One who leaves home does not intentionally overthrow anything, yet all evil naturally disappears—just as the sun rises not intending to dispel darkness, yet darkness disappears by itself.

"Transcending provisional names." The scriptures teach four aspects: First, samsara is a provisional name, while nirvana is not. Samsara is empty and illusory, so it is provisional; nirvana is true reality, thus not provisional. Second, nirvana is provisional and samsara is not. Nirvana is nameless, and a name is imposed on it, hence provisional; samsara is inherently a realm of names and forms, not imposed, so it is not provisional. Third, both are provisional. Because samsara and nirvana arise from mutual dependence, they are provisional. As the Avatamsaka Sutra says, "Samsara and nirvana are both illusory." Fourth, both are not provisional. Setting aside names to approach things themselves, the nature of all things is thusness, which is beyond words, so neither is a provisional name. Here, the first interpretation is used: samsara is a provisional name, and upon attaining nirvana one transcends it.

"Coming out of the mud, without attachment." Transcending provisional names means leaving the fruit of samsara; coming out of the mud means leaving the cause of samsara. Householders are sunk in the mud of desire, and heretics who leave home are sunk in the mud of views. True leaving home departs from both desire and views. Not only does it depart from the desire and views of samsara—it also has no attachment even to the Path.

"Without 'mine,' without grasping, without disturbance." That one is free of attachment is because one has no "mine." Grasping means taking hold, and there are four kinds: grasping at desires, at views of self, at precepts, and at views. Now there are none of these four. If one internally has these four graspings, there must be disturbance. Because the mind grasps nothing, there is no disturbance.

"Inwardly joyful, protecting others' minds, following meditative concentration, free from all faults." One who leaves home has three kinds of joy: first, because of present merit, one naturally rejoices in advance; second, because one will later attain nirvana, the mind is constantly glad; third, not worrying and not rejoicing, with a mind unattached—this is the true sublime joy. Moreover, one can accommodate sentient beings and not oppose their minds, hence "protecting others' minds." "Following meditative concentration" means: the precepts restrain afflictions and weaken their momentum, meditative concentration blocks them from arising, and wisdom extinguishes them completely. With pure precepts, attachments are thin and the mind is calm, in accord with meditation—hence "following."

"If you can be like this, that is truly leaving home." If one does not contradict what has been said above, that is truly leaving home. This is the summary.

Then Vimalakirti said to the elders' sons, "You should all leave home in the true Dharma. Why? It is difficult to encounter a Buddha in this world." This is the third part, the benefit to the audience. There are four statements: first, Vimalakirti encourages leaving home; second, the elders say they cannot disobey the Buddha's rule; third, Vimalakirti again encourages them to make the resolve; fourth, the elders receive the teaching. This is the first statement.

Vimalakirti knew they could not physically leave home, but wanted them to generate the mind of enlightenment, so he made this encouragement.

The elders' sons said, "Householder, we have heard the Buddha say that without parental permission, one may not leave home." This is their response. The monastic code says: "Someone came to the monastery, and the monks ordained him. His parents were deeply grieved and complained to King Shuddhodana. The king said, 'The prince left home privately without letting me know, and I was grieved. From now on, without the parents' permission, no one may leave home.' The matter was reported to the Buddha, and he established a rule: 'If the parents do not permit, one must not be ordained. Anyone who recklessly ordains such a person commits a wrong-doing offense.'"

Vimalakirti said, "Then in that case, you should arouse the mind of perfect enlightenment. That itself is leaving home, and that itself is full ordination." This is the third statement. Why did he encourage the mind of enlightenment? To show that although one's body is bound to one's parents, one's mind can transcend the three realms—this is leaving the mental home. Having left the mental home, one's body and speech have no evil, and that is full precepts.

At that time, the thirty-two elders' sons all aroused the mind of perfect enlightenment. This is the fourth statement. The elders' sons, though physically hindered from leaving home, heard that one could leave the mental home while remaining a householder, and so joyfully followed.

"Therefore I am not capable of visiting him and asking after his illness." This is the third part, the summary.

「佛告阿難：汝行詣維摩詰問疾」。第十次命阿難也。就文為二：初命、二辭不堪。阿難者，此云無染。支道林云「博聞，舊翻歡喜，凡有三義：一者釋迦過去發願：『願我成佛，持者名曰歡喜。』二者阿難是佛得道夜生。淨飯王云：『今是歡喜日，可詺此兒以為歡喜。』三者阿難形容端正，見者歡喜，故名歡喜。」阿難與羅雲同是佛親，而命有前後者，凡有四義：一者阿難與羅雲雖同是佛得道夜生，而羅雲在胎六年，以其年大，故前命也。二者羅云出家得羅漢果，阿難猶居學地。三者羅云在俗當紹國位，阿難不然，以君臣次第，故命有前後。四者羅睺明出家為因、阿難辨法身為果，先因後果，以為次第。「阿難白佛言：世尊！我不堪任詣彼問疾」。此第二釋不堪，有標、釋、結。此初文也。「所以者何？憶念昔時世尊身小有疾，當用牛乳，我即持鉢詣大婆羅門家門下立」。此第二次釋不堪。就文為三：初明被呵之由、二述能呵之旨、三阿難受屈。此初文也。身小有疾者，然理疾之意，非可一徒。良以淺識之流取信耳目，於如來而生劣想。今彰阿難不達，或同眾人；淨名高呵，以開法身之唱，令悟應也。當用牛乳者，佛在毘耶離音樂樹下說法，身患風氣，須乳煮糜也。詣大婆羅門者，毘耶離有大婆羅門名梵摩耶，是婆羅門師，有五百弟子，信受邪道、不敬佛法而大慳貪。今以七聖化之、一佛現疾、二阿難乞乳、三淨名來呵、四牛母說偈、五牛子說偈、六化人搆乳、七空內聲告。此人大慳，以羅網覆庭屋，令飛鳥不能得食穀食等也。朝往與乳，正值其人與五百弟子共入見王，問阿難何求，答具上事。梵志默然不對，自意思惟：若不與，諸人謂我悋情；我若與者，復謂事瞿曇。良久，即指取惡弊牛，令阿難自攝取乳。作此意者，一欲明瞿曇常與我諍功德勝，今令惡牛抵殺其弟子，即恥其師，令眾人捨瞿曇來就我也。又牛既惡，必不得乳，於我無損。是時有化人來為搆乳，而牛說偈：「今施佛乳。云留少許與犢子。」犢子說偈云：「盡施如來，我自噉草。」事出《乳光經》。「時維摩詰來謂我言：唯阿難！何為晨朝持鉢住」。此第二能呵之旨。就文為三：一問、二答、三呵。晨朝非乞食時，是以問也。「我言：居士！世尊身小有疾，當用牛乳，故來至此」。第二阿難以事對也。「維摩詰言：止止。阿難！莫作此語」。此第三正呵。文凡有三誡三釋，此初誡也。所以重止者，佛若實病，則上隱法身之德、下增眾生之累，今欲斷此二義，是故重止。「如來身者，金剛之體」。此釋上誡也。小乘人云骨是金剛、肉非金剛。大乘明如來生身，內外金剛、一切實滿，有大勢力，無有病處。若以金剛喻法身者，如《涅槃．金剛身品》說之。法身是常，不可壞，故如金剛。「諸惡已斷、眾善普會，當有何疾？當有何惱」。上就果門辨無病，此就因門釋無病。眾惡已斷，無有病因；眾善眾會，無有病因。「默往，阿難！勿謗如來」。此第二誡也。默往，令還去也。無病事彰，必不須乳，故令還去。苟云是實，則謗佛也。「莫使異人聞此麁言」。病為當近，麁之極也。不達聞之，必謂實病。「無令大威德諸天及他方淨土諸來菩薩得聞斯語」。什公云「五淨居天上別有大自在天是十地菩薩，又他方大士，此之二人若聞斯言，知佛方便，怪汝不達也。」「阿難！轉輪聖王以小福故尚得無病，豈況如來無量福會普勝者哉」。此第二釋也。前就聖推，此舉凡況。輪王乃不及欲界諸天，但以人間小福尚得無病，豈況如來普勝三界而有疾哉。論云「有羅漢名薄俱羅，往昔為賣藥師。語夏安居僧言：『若有須藥，就我取之。』眾竟無所須。唯一比丘小病，受一呵利勒果。因是九十一劫生於天人，受無量快樂，但聞藥名而身無微患。於此生中年已九十一劫，亦未曾有病。況積善無量，病由何生？行矣阿難！勿使我等受斯恥也」。此第三誡。推事既爾，必應還去。苟執不去，非但佛有斯謗，我等亦受其恥。「外道梵志若聞此語，當作是念：何名為師？自疾不能救，而能救諸疾人」。前明內學受恥。此辨外道譏謗：何名法之良醫？自身疾不能救，何救人心疾乎？「可密速去，勿使人聞」。正士若聞，謂汝不達；邪師若聞，謂佛實病。「當知阿難！諸如來身即是法身，非思欲身」。此第三釋也。凡有三雙，並就得離門釋。此是初雙，先據得門。什公云「法身有三：一法化身，金剛是也；二五分法身；三實相法身。」此似化報法三佛義。此之三佛，並無實病。非思欲身，就離門也。三界有待之形名思欲身。又釋：思是業，欲為結，非結業身也。「佛為世尊，過於三界」。此第二雙也。以德無不備，故為世所尊，此明得也。過於三界，三界眾生具受八苦，所以有病。佛過三界，此離門也。「佛身無漏，諸漏已盡。佛身無為，不墮諸數」。此第三雙，明得離也。初句明離。雖出三界，容是最後邊身，猶是漏法，豈得無病？佛既無漏，故無病矣。次句明得。雖曰無漏，容是有為，有為即是起滅法，未得免病。既是無為，不隨有數。有人言：非思欲身，離分段因；過於三界，離分段果；佛身無漏，離變易因；佛身無為，離變易果。「如此之身，當有何病」。上別明無患，此總結德也。「時我，世尊！實懷慚愧，得無近佛而謬聽耶」。此第三明阿難受屈。文有三別：一阿難懷愧、二空內出聲、三稱讚居士。受使如此、被識如彼，故進退懷愧。淨名言既會理，則佛必無有病。失在於已，故謬聽。「即聞空中聲曰：阿難！如居士言。但為佛出五濁惡世，現行斯法度脫眾生。行矣阿難！取乳勿慚」。此第二明空內出聲。本迹二身，會淨名與佛二言，無相違也。如居士言者，印定淨名之說，聞法身也。但佛出五濁已下，印定如來之言，辨迹身也。以顯法身故，令於佛起尊重心；辨於迹身，則破慳生福。又得失凡有四句：一者二人俱得，淨名得實、阿難得方便。次二人俱失，全用淨名則失方便用，不得付同眾生；全用阿難，隱法身之德，物不尊敬。三淨名得、阿難失，據今能呵之義。四阿難得、淨名失，約乞乳破慳，生長物福。五濁者，謂劫濁、眾生濁、命濁、見濁、煩惱濁。劫濁者、大劫內有刀兵、疾疫、飢饉三小劫，名劫濁。眾生濁者，無仁義禮智等，諸惡眾生，名眾生濁。命濁者，以短為苦，又不得修道，稱為命濁。從百二十歲，下至三歲，悉是命濁。什公云「邪見為見濁，餘九使為煩惱。」舊云五見為見濁，五鈍為煩惱濁。「世尊！維摩詰智慧辨才為如此也」。第三稱嘆淨名也。「是故不任詣彼問疾」。不堪有三，標、釋已竟，今總結也。「如是五百大弟子各各向佛說其本緣，稱述維摩詰所言，皆曰不任詣彼問疾」。弟子品二章，初命十人已訖，此下總明五百不堪。五百者，八千羅漢內有五百高德名聞者也。