T2186 Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

Chapter 5: Mañjuśrī’s Inquiring about the Illness

Chapter Five

47a

Mañjuśrī's Inquiring

about the Illness

So far it has been described how five hundred śrāvakas and eight thousand bodhisattvas were directed [to visit Vimalakīrti and inquire about his illness], but each of them told how in the past they had been humiliated [by Vimalakīrti] and so all had declined, saying that they were not worthy. Since not a single one was willing to go, there was nobody to inquire about the illness. At that point, however, Mañjuśrī accepted the instruction to visit Vimalakīrti in his room, to fully set forth the Buddha's thoughts and inquire about the illness. Hence the title of the chapter.

From this chapter up to where it says,

"When this was finished, [Ak ṣobhya's realm Abhirati] returned to its original place, and all of the assembly saw it" in the chapter "Seeing Akṣobhya Buddha,

" is the second part of the

three main sections of this scripture, that is, the main teaching. This unfolds in two parts: the first is from this chapter up through the chapter "[The Buddha] Accumulated Fragrances,

" altogether six chapters that actually take place in

Vimalakīrti's room, in which he himself expounds the inconceivable, the principle of the two knowledges of the conventional and the real, and the transformation of people of the three capacities. The second part, from the chapter "Practices of the Bodhisattvas" up to "all of the assembly saw it" in the chapter "Seeing Akṣobhya Buddha,

" describes how [the entire assembly] went from

Vimalakīrti's room back to Āmrapālī and, together with the Buddha, clarified all manner of profound Dharma and corroborated the inconceivable teachings that had been given in Vimalakīrti's room.

One interpretation has it that the main teaching is comprised solely of the first six chapters [after the introduction, chapters five through ten]. From the chapter "Practices of the Bodhisattva" onward is the dissemination of the teachings. I will explain this when we get there. The first part of the main teaching was given when Vimalakīrti was actually in his room and concerns the transformation of people of the three capacities; this naturally has three 147

47b

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

levels. The first is the transformation of people of superior capacity and consists of the two chapters "[Mañjuśrī's] Inquiring about the Illness" and "The Inconceivable.

" The second is the transformation of people of middling capacity, and consists of the two chapters "Contemplating Sentient Beings" and "The Way of the Buddha.

" The third level is the transformation of people

of inferior capacity, and consists of the two chapters "Entering the Dharma Gate of Nonduality" and "[The Buddha] Accumulated Fragrances. "

There are also two aspects to the first level, the two chapters that concern the transformation of [those of] superior capacity. Within the first, the chapter "[Mañjuśrī's] Inquiring about the Illness,

" there is only the one person,

Vimalakīrti, and only one matter of concern, [the explanation of why Vimalakīrti] manifested the illness. Therefore, it is called a condensed explanation of the inconceivable. Within the second, the chapter "The Inconceivable, "

many buddhas and bodhisattvas appear and all manner of inconceivable things are extensively explained; hence it is called the extensive explanation of the inconceivable. When people of superior capacity hear these two teachings of the extensive and condensed [explanations of the inconceivable], they give rise to faith, enhance their understanding, and the ordinary is changed into the sagely.

Another interpretation takes it that the exposition of the inconceivable while actually in Vimalakīrti's room only has two levels. The single chapter "[Mañjuśrī's] Inquiring about the Illness" is the condensed explanation of the inconceivable, and the five chapters from the chapter "The Inconceivable" comprise the extensive explanation of the inconceivable. The five chapters, in other words, derive from the earlier matter and so the text is divided— and the chapters should be interpreted likewise. Here, however, we are going to follow the prior interpretation.

The chapter "[Mañjuśrī's] Inquiring about the Illness" initially unfolds in two levels: the first is from the beginning up to "[that which is seen] can be seen no more" and is called the background details concerning [Mañjuśrī's] inquiring about the illness; the second, from "Let us put aside this matter, "

is the actual description of [Mañjuśrī's] inquiry about [Vimalakīrti's] illness. The first level, the background details concerning [Mañjuśrī's] inquiring about the illness, opens up in six items. The first is the Buddha's directive; the second is Mañjuśrī's accepting the mandate; the third, from "within the 148

Chapter Five: Mañjuśrī's Inquiring about the Illness assembly [many wished to accompany Mañjuśrī],

" describes how the great

assembly wished to go with Mañjuśrī; the fourth, from "Thereupon, Mañjuśrī, "

describes Mañjuśrī entering Vimalakīrti's room together with a great assembly; the fifth, from "At that time the elder,

" explains how Vimalakīrti knew of

Mañjuśrī's coming along with a great assembly and emptied his room; the sixth, from "Vimalakīrti said,

" shows Vimalakīrti and Mañjuśrī exchanging

the brief courtesies of host and guest and [engaging in] a repartee that cleared away doubts.

The first item can be understood. The second item, [Mañjuśrī's] assent to the mandate, also has two parts. The first extols the virtues of the difficulty of responding to Vimalakīrti; the second, from "Nonetheless, " describes the

actual acceptance of [the Buddha's] mandate that he should go [visit Vimalakīrti]. The first part, extolling the difficulty of responding to [Vimalakīrti], also has two levels: the first is the overall praise: "That eminent man is difficult to respond to.

" The second level, from "he has deeply penetrated the true attribute,

" is a separate praise of the gate of the Dharma, consisting of nine lines divided into three layers: the first is the initial four lines that praise him according to [his mastery of] the four [unhindered] capabilities of expression; the second layer is the next four lines that praise him for [his mastery of] miscellaneous teachings; the third is the one line that concludes with praise of [his perfection of] the two knowledges.

"Deeply penetrated the true attribute" [is praise of his unhindered] expression of the meaning. The truth of the underlying principle sunders falsity and transcends the existence of perceptual attributes, therefore it says "true attribute. " "Skilled at teaching the essentials of the Dharma" refers to [Mañjuśrī's] language and expression; "His expression is unrestricted" refers to his unhindered ease of teaching; and "his discerning awareness is unobstructed" refers to his [unhindered] expression of the Dharma.

The four lines from "[He knows all the rules of] bodhisattva [conduct]" are the second level, praise of [his mastery of] miscellaneous teachings. "He

knows all the rules of bodhisattva conduct" means that he has skillfully penetrated all of the many practices of the causal stages. "There is no secret

storehouse of the buddhas to which he has not obtained entrance" means that he has skillfully penetrated the twelve meanings of the result stage that have been taught. Dharma Master Sengzhao says,

"Close by he knows the etiquette

149

47c

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

of bodhisattavas, far off he enters the secret storehouses of the many buddhas. 'Secret storehouse' means the secret storehouses of the Buddha's body, speech, and mind.

" These two lines compare cause and effect and show that there is nothing in the principle of cause and effect that is not penetrated. "Subdued hosts of Māras" means that [Vimalakīrti] has subdued the four Māras; this line praises his strong approach, and it also can refer to his practice of transformation of others.

"Sports and plays with the spiritual powers" means that in transforming beings he avails himself of the five spiritual powers as he wishes; the meaning is the same as "sports and plays.

" This line praises his flexible approach, and

it can also refer to his self-cultivation. These two lines compare his strength and agility and show that there is no feat of strength or agility of which he is incapable.

"He is already perfect in discerning awareness and skillful means" is the third level, the concluding praise of his [perfection of] the two knowledges.

"Discerning awareness" means knowing truth; "skillful means" refers to knowledge of the conventional. This shows that because he is complete in these two knowledges he has also entirely purified the many virtues for which he was praised above.

From "Nonetheless, [I will accept the Buddha's holy mandate and visit him and inquire about his illness]" is the second item in the acceptance of the [Buddha's] mandate, actually accepting that he should go [visit Vimalakīrti]. The third and fourth items can be understood. The fifth item, Vimalakīrti's knowing that Mañjuśrī was coming with a great assembly and [therefore] emptying his room, has two divisions. The first shows Vimalakīrti emptying out his room in order to begin their discussion; the second, from "[Mañjuśrī] then entered the house,

" describes Mañjuśrī seeing the empty

room.

To discuss the heart of the matter concerning Vimalakīrti's manifesting an illness, it was because he wished to cause the newly trained bodhisattvas, who might encounter the suffering of illness, to arouse great compassion and a peaceful mind so as to transform beings without experiencing fatigue. He emptied his room because he truly wanted to rid sentient beings of their confusions of right and wrong. If we discuss the specifics, however, five things were born of his emptying the room and six discussions were born of his manifesting an illness.

150

Chapter Five: Mañjuśrī's Inquiring about the Illness As for the five things born of Vimalakīrti's emptying his room, the first is Mañjuśrī seeing that the room is empty and asking Vimalakīrti, "Layman,

why is this room empty?" Vimalakīrti replied, "Not only my room, but the

many buddha realms are likewise all empty. " The second is Mañjuśrī's question,

"Why are there no servants?" Vimalakīrti replied, "All the hosts of

Māras and every one of those [beings] on non-Buddhist paths are all my servants. " The third is Śāriputra seeing that the room was empty and wondering, "Where will all these many bodhisattvas and great disciples sit?" Vimalakīrti knew his thoughts and first spoke of the ultimate underlying principle, scolding him for looking for chairs, saying,

"Ah, Śāriputra, [did you come] for the

sake of the Dharma or for the sake of a chair?" Then, by borrowing seats from [Sumeru] Lamp King, he broadly illustrated the underlying principle of all manner of the bodhisattva's inconceivable [activities]. The fourth thing is that the bodhisattva Universally Manifested Form Body saw that the room was empty and asked Vimalakīrti, "Layman, your

father, your mother, your wife, your child, your friends—who are they? Your elephants, horses, carriages, servants and attendants—where are they?" Vimalakīrti replied that,

"The perfection of discerning awareness is the bodhisattva's mother, and skillful means is the father. " That is to say, he broadly

proclaimed all manner of the great being's practices. The fifth thing is Śāriputra's seeing that the room was empty and wondering, "It is already noon—

what are these many bodhisattvas going to eat?" Vimalakīrti knew his thoughts and initially, by means of the eight liberations, scolded him, saying, "The

Buddha has taught the eight liberations; you, good sir, should accept and practice them. Why do you mix up your desire for food with listening to the Dharma?" Then he requested food from [the Buddha] in the fragrant land and, with a single meal, fed everybody [in the great assembly]. Thereby he revealed the meaning of all manner of doing a buddha's work. In short, these are the five things born of Vimalakīrti's emptying his room. Six discussions were born of his manifesting an illness. The first was Mañjuśrī asking,

"Layman, what is the cause of this illness?" Vimalakīrti replied,

"A bodhisattva's illness is caused by their great compassion. " The

second discussion is occasioned by Mañjuśrī asking, "Layman, have you

long been ill like this?" Vimalakīrti replied, "Because of ignorance there is

attachment; hence the birth of my illness. " The third is Mañjuśrī asking,

151

48a

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

"Layman, how can this illness be extinguished?" Vimalakīrti replied, "My

illness is caused by the illness of all sentient beings; if the illness of all sentient beings is extinguished, then my illness will be extinguished. "

The fourth discussion is Mañjuśrī asking,

"Layman, what are the attributes

of this illness?" Vimalakīrti replied,

"My illness has no form and cannot be

seen.

" The fifth discussion is Mañjuśrī asking,

"How should a bodhisattva

comfort and instruct a bodhisattva who is ill?" Vimalakīrti replied that they should be comforted and instructed with truths such as "Explain that the body is impermanent, but do not teach that you should despise or abandon this body.

" The sixth discussion is when Mañjuśrī asks,

"How should a bodhisattva who is ill discipline their mind?" Vimalakīrti replied, "Bodhisattvas

who are ill should think: 'My present illness entirely stems from the deluded thoughts, confused thinking, and many mental afflictions of my previous lives; there are no real dharmas—who could experience illness?'" First, one should be made to know the cause of the illness, and afterward be taught to see things [like this]. In short, this is how the six discussions are born of [Vimalakīrti's manifesting an] illness.

The reason that Mañjuśrī and [the bodhisattva] Universally Manifested [Form Body] revealed their questions aloud but Śāriputra only thought [to himself about his questions] is because these two great beings and Vimalakīrti were all of the Mahayana—thus, even if they harbored a question in their minds they could ask it aloud without embarrassment. Śāriputra, however, was a Hinayana follower and found it difficult to engage in the give-andtake among the many great beings; hence he could not ask [his questions] out loud but only thought [to himself about them].

From "At that time, Vimalakīrti said" is the sixth item [of the background details of Mañjuśrī's inquiry], the brief exchange of courtesies between host and guest. This also has two parts. The first is the host's initial commendation of the guest; the second, from "Just so, layman,

" is the guest's humble reply.

The first part, the host's commending the guest, itself has two meanings. The first is,

"Welcome, Mañjuśrī,

" straightaway commending his coming. In correspondence to the spiritual capacity of beings, profound benefits will surely be had.

"Going" and "coming" are words that refer to backward and forward. From Vimalakīrti's room looking [back] toward Āmrapālī, [Mañjuśrī] is 152

Chapter Five: Mañjuśrī's Inquiring about the Illness "coming"; from Āmrapālī looking [forward] toward Vimalakīrti's room, [Mañjuśrī] is "going.

" "You have come without the attribute of coming. " If

we speak from the point of view of truth, in crossing over from Āmrapālī there is leaving but not arriving at Vimalakīrti's room; therefore it says, "without the attribute of coming. " However, if we speak from the point of view of the conventional, the crossing over from Āmrapālī is continuous without ceasing, and so there is the coming to Vimalakīrti's room; therefore it says "You have come.

"

The second meaning is,

"You see [me] without the attribute of seeing. "

Again, to speak from the point of view of truth, the Mañjuśrī that was in Āmrapālī has left and arrived at Vimalakīrti's room, nonetheless there is no seeing [Vimalakīrti]; therefore it says, "without the attribute of seeing. " However, from the point of view of the conventional, the Mañjuśrī of Āmrapālī continues on, without ceasing, eventually arriving at Vimalakīrti's room and seeing him; therefore it says,

"You see [me].

" These two lines laud the lack of perceptual attributes in [Mañjuśrī's] coming [to visit Vimalakīrti]. From "Mañjuśrī said" is the second part, the guest's humble reply. This has two further aspects: the first is the simple statement, "Just so, layman";

the second is the explanation of this statement, "Just so, [layman],

" and indicates that there is nothing said by the layman that is not correct with regard to the underlying principle.

"If one has already come, there is no more coming. " If within the provisional [truth] one has completed [the act of] coming, then in the [ultimate] truth there is no more coming.

"If one has already gone, there is no more going.

" This is the same [as above]. This should be followed by, "If one has

already seen, there is no more seeing, " but the text is simply abridged. From "Why" is the second aspect, the explanation [of the above statements]; it expresses a question as to why coming and going are without a fixed existence.

"One who comes, comes from nowhere. " To talk about the

one who comes within the provisional [realm] from the point of view of reality, the crossing over from Āmrapālī ends in Āmrapālī—the crossing over to Vimalakīrti's room arises only at Vimalakīrti's room; therefore it says "comes from nowhere.

" "One who leaves, goes nowhere. " To talk about the

one who leaves within the provisional [realm] from the point of view of reality, the Mañjuśrī of Āmrapālī has himself been extinguished in Āmrapālī— 153

48b

48c

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra there is no leaving and arriving at Vimalakīrti's room; therefore it says, "goes

nowhere.

"

"That which is seen [cannot be seen again]" refers to the fact that, although in the realm of provisional designations both Āmrapālī and Vimalakīrti's room are seen, if we speak from the point of view of [ultimate] truth, the seeing of Āmrapālī is extinguished [at Āmrapālī] and does not carry over to Vimalakīrti's room. That and this—each arises and each passes away. Mañjuśrī does not have the role of one who sees, nor does Vimalakīrti have the function of the one who is seen; hence it says, "cannot be seen again.

"

From "Let us put aside this matter" is the second level [of this chapter], the actual description of [Mañjuśrī's] inquiry about [Vimalakīrti's] illness. This further unfolds in three parts: the first is initially passing on the gist of the Buddha's inquiry; the second, from "Layman, what is the cause of this illness?"

, sets forth Mañjuśrī's own concerns; the third, from "When he spoke these words,

" gives the benefits received by the assembly at that time. "Let us put aside this matter.

" Because he wanted to convey the Buddha's

inquiry about his condition, he sought to end the initial discussion. From "Layman, [can you endure this illness]" is the actual expression of the nature of the Buddha's inquiry. There were three questions: (1) "Layman, can you bear this illness or not?"

, (2) "Does the treatment hurt?"

, and (3) "Is it not

getting worse?"

"The World-honored One has made innumerable courteous inquiries about you.

" This conveys the Tathāgata's deep concern. What is being said is not only in these three questions, but in his great compassion he is broadly and limitlessly questioning all.

From "Layman, [what is the cause] of this illness?" is the second part [of the actual description of Mañjuśrī's inquiry about Vimalakīrti's illness] and relates Mañjuśrī's own concerns. This also is unpacked in two parts: the first discusses only the situation in Vimalakīrti's room; the second, from "At that time Mañjuśrī asked Vimalakīrti, saying 'How should a bodhisattva comfort and instruct a bodhisattva who is ill?'" , is the general discussion for

the sake of the other, newly trained bodhisattvas. As for the first part, the discussion of just the things in Vimalakīrti's room, this too unfolds in three [parts]: the first is the discussion about the cause of the illness; the second, from "Mañjuśrī said, 'Layman, why is this

154

Chapter Five: Mañjuśrī's Inquiring about the Illness room empty?"

, discusses the reason that the room is empty; the third, from "Layman, what are the attributes of your illness?" , is a discussion about the

cause of [the medical diagnoses of the] cold and hot attributes of Vimalakīrti's illness.

The first, the discussion about the cause of the illness, also has two parts: the first is asking Vimalakīrti about three things; the second is Vimalakīrti replying to those three things. The first of the three questions is "Layman, what is the cause of this illness?" This line asks about the cause of Vimalakīrti's illness. This is the first of the six discussions born of [Vimalakīrti's manifesting] an illness. The second question is "Layman, have you long been ill like this?" This line asks how many days have passed since he became ill, whether it has been a long or short time. This is the second of the six discussions born of [Vimalakīrti's manifesting] an illness. The third question is "How can it be extinguished?" This line asks about whether healing the illness will take a long or short time. This is the third discussion of the six discussions occasioned by [Vimalakīrti's manifesting] an illness. The second part, Vimalakīrti's reply to these three questions, has two further divisions. The first is the initial response to the latter two questions; the second, from "He again spoke, ['from what cause does] this illness [arise]?'"

, adds a reply to the first question.

The first division, the initial response to the latter two questions, also has three parts. The first is the actual answer to the latter two questions. The second, from "Why?"

, lists his explanations. The third, from "For example, it is like an elder,

" uses an example to further elucidate the meaning of his reply. The second question above,

"Have you long been ill like this?"

, is here

answered with,

"Because of ignorance there is attachment; hence my illness arises.

" Because sentient beings have the real illnesses of ignorance and attachment, bodhisattvas are moved—hence the bodhisattvas are also ill in response. The third question above,

"How can it be extinguished?"

, is here answered

with,

"My illness is caused by the illness of all sentient beings; if the illness of all sentient beings is extinguished, then my illness will be extinguished. "

This means that if the real illnesses of ignorance and attachment of sentient beings that cause the bodhisattvas to be moved are extinguished, then the illness that the bodhisattvas have in response [to sentient beings] will likewise be extinguished.

155

49a

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra From "Why?" is the second part, that is, the listing of [Vimalakīrti's] explanations; it expresses a question.

"Because of ignorance there is attachment; hence my illness arises. . . . [If] sentient beings' illness is extinguished, my illness will be extinguished—what is the reason?" Bodhisattvas enter samsara because of the real illnesses of sentient beings' ignorance and attachment. Because there is samsara, bodhisattvas also are ill in response. Therefore it says,

"Because of ignorance there is attachment; hence my illness arises. "

Further, if the real illnesses of sentient beings' ignorance and attachment are extinguished, then the bodhisattvas too will have no residue of illness. Therefore it says, "if the illness of [all] sentient beings is extinguished, then my illness will be extinguished.

"

From "For example, it is like an elder" is the third part, using an example to further elucidate the meaning of his reply; there are two aspects, the opening and the combining [of the example with the teaching about the bodhisattva]. "For example, it is like an elder who has an only child; the child falls ill and the father and mother also fall ill.

" This illustrates the above,

"Because of

ignorance there is attachment; hence the birth of my illness. " "If the child's

illness is cured then the father and mother's illness will also be cured" illustrates the above, "If the illness of all sentient beings is extinguished, then my illness will be extinguished.

" The second aspect, the combining [of the

example and the teaching about the bodhisattva], can be understood. From "He again spoke, ['From what cause does this illness arise?']" is the second division of the three questions, the additional answer to the first question about the cause [of the illness].

"He again spoke,

'From what cause

does this illness arise?'" This illustrates the above words, "A bodhisattva's

illness is caused by their great compassion.

" This is the actual answer to the

question. This means that without the great compassion of the profound source there would be no cause for the illness [of the bodhisattva] to arise in response. Thus it says,

"caused by their great compassion.

"

In short, we can also list five questions and answers that give the intent of this [exchange]. The first question is, if the reason Mañjuśrī inquired of [Vimalakīrti's] illness was originally because of the Buddha's directive, why did Vimalakīrti only answer Mañjuśrī's personal questions here and not respond to the Buddha's inquiry? In short. there are three reasons why [Vimalakīrti] did not answer the Buddha's inquiry. The first is that after the business 156

Chapter Five: Mañjuśrī's Inquiring about the Illness

in Vimalakīrti's room is concluded, Vimalakīrti and Mañjuśrī will go together to see the Tathāgata and there, in front of [the Tathāgata], he will respectfully answer [the Tathāgata's inquiry]. Hence he did not answer [here]. The second is that after Mañjuśrī passed on the Buddha's directive he next set forth his own questions. There was no break in which to answer the Buddha's inquiry; hence [Vimalakīrti] did not respond [to the Buddha's inquiries]. The third reason is that if we speak from the point of view of truth, although these were Mañjuśrī's personal questions they were also none other than the Buddha's questions. The reason is that he had already said above, "The Worldhonored One has made innumerable courteous inquiries about you. " Mañjuśrī

understood the intent of this, and so when he made his own inquiries there was nothing in what he asked that was not the Buddha's intent. Thus neither did Vimalakīrti give a separate reply.

The second question is why, if the above three questions began with an inquiry about the cause of Vimalakīrti's illness, his reply began with an answer to the latter two questions. Interpreting this, we say that it had not yet been explained to the great assembly that the bodhisattva's illness was in response [to sentient beings' illness] and not real. If he had initially answered the first question about the cause, saying that the illness of the bodhisattva arises from his great compassion, then they would think that bodhisattvas have real illnesses that arise because of their great compassion. Thus he first answered the latter two questions, explaining that essentially bodhisattvas do not have real illnesses and only have illness in response [to sentient beings' illness—that is, they only manifest illness] in order to transform beings. Thereby sentient beings would truly understand that, this being the case, the bodhisattvas' illness was only a response and not real. Next he explained that the bodhisattvas' illnesses arise because of their great compassion and made them understand that the real illness of sentient beings arises because of ignorance and attachment, and that the bodhisattvas' illness in response [to sentient beings' illness] arises because of their great compassion. This is the reason he first answered the latter two questions and subsequently answered the first question.

The third question is that, this being so, Mañjuśrī should have first asked his second and third questions: "Have you long been [ill] like this?" and "How can [this illness] be extinguished?" Instead Mañjuśrī immediately 157

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

49b

came to the point and first asked about the cause. But it has already been stated that Vimalakīrti and Mañjuśrī were great sages who had already realized the same true awakening—how could there be any difference in the quality [of that realization]? Interpreting this, we say that the reason Mañjuśrī did not immediately come to the point and first asked about the cause is because he wished to show that great compassion is the source of the bodhisattvas' ten thousand transformations. That Vimalakīrti first answered the latter two questions is because he wanted to show that the illness of a great being is only a response [to sentient beings] and is not real. If Mañjuśrī had not first asked about the cause, there would be no reason for showing that great compassion is the source of the bodhisattvas' ten thousand transformations. If Vimalakīrti had not first responded to the latter two questions, then again there would be no reason to show that the bodhisattvas' illness was only in response [to the illness of sentient beings] and is not real. Thus it is likely that the two sages together knew the appropriate time and together brought forth [the sequence of questions and answers].

The fourth question is that if, as has been said, great beings are essentially without any real illness and are only ill for the sake of [saving] beings, and if [illness] arises because of ignorance and attachment, then [Vimalakīrti] should have answered thus to the first question,

"From what cause does [this

illness] arise?" Why doesn't he say that [illness] arises because of ignorance and attachment? Interpreting this, we say that sentient beings have the real illnesses of ignorance and attachment, and hence they move the bodhisattvas. Because bodhisattvas have a mind of great compassion they also are ill in response [to the illness of sentient beings]. Being ill in response [to the illness of sentient beings], there is already a remote causal connection with the ignorance and attachment of sentient beings. However, the great compassion of the bodhisattvas is already the proximate [cause], and so here the proximate [cause] is used for the answer to the first question about the cause of [the illness] arising. The fifth question is if the reason the bodhisattvas are ill in response [to the illness of sentient beings] is because they possess a mind of great compassion—in other words, the illness that bodhisattvas experience in response [to the illness of sentient beings] arises because of their great compassion— why doesn't [Vimalakīrti] answer thus to the second question, "Have you

158

Chapter Five: Mañjuśrī's Inquiring about the Illness

long been [ill] like this?" In interpreting this, we say that he couldn't [answer in this way]. The reason is that, as already stated, great beings are essentially without any real illness and only are ill as a response in order to transform beings. Therefore he answered that his illness arises because there are sentient beings with the real illnesses of ignorance and attachment. Thus, too, the [bodhisattva's] healing must await the extinguishing of sentient beings' real illnesses of ignorance and attachment. If, in response to the second question, "Have you long been [ill] like this?"

, he had said that [the illness of bodhisattvas] arises from great compassion, then, because great compassion is a personal quality of the bodhisattvas, [it would appear] that their illness too arise from [the bodhisattvas] themselves and not because they were moved by the [suffering] of beings. If this were the case, then the import of [the bodhisattvas' illness only being in response to] the illness of beings would be lost. Moreover, because there is no time when [bodhisattvas] lack great compassion, they would always have to be resting in bed [because of being ill]. However, even though great compassion can never be exhausted, bodhisattvas are not always bedridden. Therefore, [in reply to the second question about how long he has been ill, Vimalakīrti] could not reply that [his illness] arises because of great compassion.

One interpretation says that the reason that the latter two of the three questions are answered first is that the source of the illness [is the bodhisattva's compassion] for the sake of beings, and so [Vimalakīrti] wanted to first reveal the meaning that [his illness] is for the sake of beings; therefore he answered [the latter two questions] first. It can also be said that if there is a manifestation, there is surely a source, but even if there is a source there is not yet necessarily a manifestation. Therefore [Vimalakīrti] first answered about the manifestation. Replying to the second question, "Have you long

been [ill] like this?" by saying,

"Because of ignorance there is attachment;

hence the birth of my illness,

" shows that because sentient beings have the

afflictions of ignorance and attachment they obtain the illness of samsara; hence they move the bodhisattvas [to respond]. Because bodhisattvas possess great compassion, they respond with the same illness. This means that because the ignorance and attachment of sentient beings is without beginning, the illness [caused by] the bodhisattvas' great compassion is also without beginning.

159

49c

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

The answer to the third question,

"How can it be extinguished?"

, says,

"If the illness of [all] sentient beings is extinguished, then my illness will be extinguished.

" If [the number of ill] sentient beings is inexhaustible, when will Vimalakīrti's illness be extinguished? This means that the illness has no end. For this we should use the traditional understandings—if we check these interpretations, it is simply said that because the real illness of sentient beings' ignorance and attachment has neither beginning nor end, the [sympathetic] illness of the bodhisattvas in response also has neither beginning nor end. However, there is also a new way of interpreting this. In general, there are two kinds of real illnesses that sentient beings have. In accordance with this, there are also two kinds of illnesses that bodhisattvas have in response. The first is the constant illness of samsaric mental afflictions. Because of this, bodhisattvas have the constant illness of entering samsara because of their great compassion. The second type is the specific illnesses of ignorance and attachment that can be extinguished by a bodhisattva manifesting as [an ill person] resting in bed. For this reason, too, bodhisattvas have specific illnesses that they manifest and they rest in bed. If we were to speak about the constant illness of their freely entering samsara, it would be just like this. But here the question is only about the manifested illnesses that should extinguish the specific illnesses of ignorance and attachment; the question is not about the constant illness of their freely entering samsara because of their great compassion. The reason is that if the constant illness of their entering samsara because of their great compassion necessarily led to their manifesting [an illness] and resting in bed, then all of the sages would surely be bedridden— not just Vimalakīrti alone. Moreover, if it was [a question of] the constant illness caused by their great compassion, then too Vimalakīrti would always be lying down. But there are times when he is not bedridden. Furthermore, if it is certainly the case that the constant illness [caused by the bodhisattva's great compassion] is without beginning or end, how could the concluding example say,

"[when] the child's illness is cured, then the father and mother are also cured"? Because there surely is a time when a worldly child's illness is cured, [shouldn't the illness of the bodhisattva also have an end?] However, the traditional understanding does not really exhaust the matter, as far as I have heard. Let me also give my own opinion. Sometimes he is constantly in bed, day and night, and sometimes he is not. I will also say that 160

Chapter Five: Mañjuśrī's Inquiring about the Illness

sometimes all the sages are bedridden and only Vimalakīrti is not. The reason is that being bedridden or not are not personal characteristics of the sage. That they are as they are is certainly because sentient beings have differing spiritual capacities in how they experience things. Some see that Vimalakīrti's illness is cured and he gets up and leaves [his house], and some see him resting in bed—this is what is meant by both constantly bedridden and also not in bed. Moreover, if there is a karmic connection then all the sages will manifest [illness and rest] in bed; if there is no karmic connection, then not even Vimalakīrti will be bedridden. Sentient beings too sometimes see all the sages ill in bed and sometimes they see only Vimalakīrti in bed and [the sages] not bedridden. How could this be predetermined? From this we can surmise that there is nothing wrong with the fact that, because sentient beings' real illnesses of ignorance and attachment are without beginning or end, the illnesses that the bodhisattvas have in response are also without beginning or end.

From "Mañjuśrī said, ['Layman, why is this room empty?']" is the second discussion of things in Vimalakīrti's room, the discussion caused by his emptying the room. This itself has two parts: the first gives Mañjuśrī's question to Vimalakīrti; the second gives Vimalakīrti's answer to Mañjuśrī's question.

The first part, Mañjuśrī's query, itself has two questions. The first question is "Why is this room empty?" This import of this question is that [Vimalakīrti] must engage in the karmic activities of a white-robed [layman]; moreover, he is physically ill and so there surely should be offerings of provisions. But now there is not anything in the room—hence the question. This is the first of the six discussions born of the emptiness of [Vimalakīrti's] room. The second question is "Why are there no servants?" The import of this question is also that when [Vimalakīrti] is ill he would surely have someone watching over and caring for him, but now there are no servants at all—hence the question. This is the second of the six discussions born of his emptying his room. The second part, Vimalakīrti's answer, also has two parts. The first answers the question about the emptiness of the room; the second answers the question about why there are no servants.

The first part, the answer to the question about the emptiness of the room, also has two items. The first gives the actual answer according to the emptiness 161

50a

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra of the underlying principle; the second, from "He asked again, 'With what

was it emptied?'"

, gives an exchange of six questions and answers and eliminates the question. The first item is the actual answer: "Vimalakīrti said, 'The many buddha

realms are likewise all empty.

'" This means that the many buddha realms are primordially empty. Why did [Mañjuśrī] ask again about the emptiness of the room? The question was about the emptiness of phenomena [in Vimalakīrti's room], and the answer was about the emptiness of the underlying principle [of the many buddha realms]. The second item, giving an exchange of six questions and answers and eliminating the question, is also divided into two. First, the initial three [questions and answers] clarify the emptiness of objects, and the latter three clarify the emptiness of knowing.

The first question is,

"With what was it emptied?" Because there is nothing in the room, it is empty. Now, the many buddha realms are actually seen with various things—what does it mean to explain that they are empty? "He replied, saying,

'It was emptied with emptiness.

'" The means that it was

explained to be empty because ultimate truth is empty. "[Mañjuśrī] inquired further,

'How can emptiness use emptiness?'" If the many buddha realms are primordially empty, then [everything] should be simply and straightforwardly empty in and of themselves—why then should [Vimalakīrti] empty the room in order to further clarify emptiness? "He replied, saying,

'It is empty because ultimate truth is without discrimination. '" Because [Vimalakīrti] wished to illustrate that nondiscrimination is empty, he emptied the room. If he had wished to illustrate that ultimate truth is empty by the room's emptiness, then there would be two emptinessess, the emptiness of ultimate truth and the emptiness of the room. Thus, "[Mañjuśrī] asked further,

'Can emptiness be discriminated?'" The underlying principle of the ultimate truth severs discrimination, therefore "[Vimalakīrti] replied,

'Discrimination is also empty.

'"

The traditional understanding, however, is a little different. "With what

was it emptied?" asks whether it is the emptiness of the underlying principle or of the phenomenal things that is the cause of the emptiness of the room. "He replied,

'It was emptied with emptiness.

'" This means the emptiness

that comes from knowing emptiness due to the emptiness of the underlying 162

Chapter Five: Mañjuśrī's Inquiring about the Illness

principle. The prior emptiness is the emptiness of objects. The latter emptiness is the emptiness of knowing.

"[Mañjuśrī inquired] further,

'How can emptiness

use emptiness?'" This means that if the underlying principle is itself empty, how can we provisionally establish the knowing of emptiness? "He replied, 'It is empty because of non discriminating emptiness.

'" This means that the

underlying principle does not provisionally establish knowing. But if knowing is not [provisionally established] there is no cause for understanding. Therefore this emptiness is attained through the knowing of nondiscriminating emptiness. Knowing pertains to existent phenomena, and emptiness pertains to nonexistent phenomena. In other words, there are two attributes that can be discriminated, therefore "[Mañjuśrī further] inquired, 'Can emptiness be discriminated?'" Within emptiness there is nothing that can be discriminated as having [these] two attributes, therefore [Vimalakīrti] said, "Discrimination

is also empty.

"

From "[Mañjuśrī] inquired further" is the second part, the three questions and answers that clarify the emptiness of knowing.

"[Mañjuśrī] inquired further,

'Where should emptiness be sought?'"

There is the danger that some who are confused might see these two great beings eloquently discussing the meaning of emptiness and think that the meaning of emptiness is [only] in the true and not in the false. In other words, knowledge of emptiness can only be sought from these two great beings. Hence [Mañjuśrī] asked further,

"Where should this knowledge of emptiness

be sought?"

[Vimalakīrti] answered, saying that the sixty-two views are entirely empty and it can be sought therein—in other words, [knowledge of emptiness] can be sought within emptiness. This means, then, that there is nothing that can be sought. Beings, however, will then think that they should only seek it within non-Buddhist paths. Hence "[Mañjuśrī] asked further, 'Where should

the sixty-two views be sought?'" [Vimalakīrti] answered that the emptiness of the buddhas' liberation is no different from the emptiness of the sixty-two views, and can be sought therein. However, beings might then reckon that it can only be sought from the buddhas, and so "[Mañjuśrī] asked further, 'Where should the liberation of the buddhas be sought?'" [Vimalakīrti] replied that the emptiness of the mental functions of sentient beings is no different from the emptiness of the buddhas' liberation, and can be sought therein. 163

50b

50c

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

Exhausting the lofty and entirely completing the low and middling, it is impartial and devoid of perceptual attributes and without differentiating attributes. If you wish to seek true knowing then you should only seek it within impartial emptiness.

One school interprets this as mutually negating, meaning that you cannot seek true knowing within the sixty-two views. It is as if there is no knowledge that can be attained within that which is devoid of perceptual attributes. I think that knowledge of emptiness can only be attained with regard to the entirely empty [nature] of these three things, [that is, the emptiness of the sixty-two views, the liberation of the buddhas, and the mental functions of sentient beings].

From "You also asked [why there are no servants]" is the answer to the second question about [the lack of] servants [in Vimalakīrti's quarters]. This has two parts: (1) the actual answer, and (2) the interpretation. "You also

asked why there are no servants" refers to the above question. "All the hosts

of Māras and all those on non-Buddhist paths are all my servants. " "Servants"

means subordinated followers; all the hosts of Māras and those on non-Buddhist paths follow his transformative [teachings], and so it says they are "all my servants.

"

The second part is the interpretation. Why are all the [Māras and non-Buddhists also] his servants? "The hosts of Māras delight in samsara, and the bodhisattvas are in samsara and do not forsake it" —rather, they instruct

and cause [the hosts of Māras] to enter the Way.

"Non-Buddhists delight in

the many views, but the bodhisattvas are unmoved by the many views" —

instead, they transform and cause [non-Buddhists] to change and follow them. Therefore [Vimalakīrti] said that "they are all my servants. "

From "Mañjuśrī said" is the third part of the discussion of just the things in Vimalakīrti's room, the discussion prompted by the attributes of [Vimalakīrti's] illness. This is [also] the fourth of the six discussions born of [Vimalakīrti's manifesting] an illness. Within this there are two parts, the question and answer. [Mañjuśrī] asked,

"Layman, what are the attributes of your illness?" The perceptual attributes of an illness are chills, fever, weakness, and fatigue, and so [Mañjuśrī] is asking which of these symptoms [Vimalakīrti] has. One interpretation is that he is asking about which attributes of the four elements [are manifested in his illness].

164

Chapter Five: Mañjuśrī's Inquiring about the Illness The second part, Vimalakīrti's answer, itself has three items. The first is simply saying that his illness has no perceptual attribute that can be seen. The second, from "[Mañjuśrī] asked further, 'Is this illness associated with the

body?'"

, eliminates the doubts with an exchange of two questions and answers. The third, from "However, the illnesses of sentient beings, " concludes [the

explanation of why Vimalakīrti's] illness has no perceptual attributes. "My illness has no form; it cannot be seen. " The essential nature of

[Vimalakīrti's] illness is empty; because there is no illness, it is without form or shape that can be seen. One interpretation takes it that this means that the ground of the Dharma body is primordially without any perceptual attributes of illness that can be seen.

The second item is the exchange that eliminates the doubts. "[Mañjuśrī]

asked further,

'Is this illness associated with the body or associated with the mind?'" Some might hear,

"My illness has no form; it cannot be seen" and think that there is one [particular kind of] illness that is without form and cannot be seen. Thus [Mañjuśrī] asked,

"Is this illness associated with the

body or associated with the mind?"

"[Vimalakīrti] replied,

'[My illness] is not associated with the body, because it is removed from the attributes of the body. '" This means that the

body is empty.

"It is also not associated with the mind because the mind is like an illusion.

" This means that the mind is also empty. This shows that mind and body being empty, there is nothing with which the illness can be associated. One interpretation has it that beings will wonder if it is because the perceptual attributes of the illness are subtly associated with the body and mind that they cannot be seen; hence [Mañjuśrī] asked "[Is this illness] associated with the body or associated with the mind?" Then "[Vimalakīrti] replied, '[My illness] is not associated with the body because it is removed from the attributes of the body,

'" meaning that the Dharma body is already devoid of the perceptual attributes of the body.

"It is also not associated with the mind because the mind is like an illusion" means that [Vimalakīrti's] knowing is likewise without perceptual attribute. Dharma Master Sengzhao simply says that beings might hear "My illness has no form, it cannot be seen, " and then

think that because an illness of the mind has no form it cannot be seen, and because an illness of the body is subtle it cannot be seen—therefore giving rise to [Mañjuśrī's] question. The meaning of the reply is the same as before. 165

51a

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

The second question asks to which of the four elements [Vimalakīrti's] illness is related. Beings might wonder if the illness relates to the four elements yet cannot be seen; hence the question about which of the four elements the illness relates to.

"[Vimalakīrti] answered,

'[This illness] is not related to the

earth element.

" The essential nature of the earth [element] is empty. "It is

also not removed from the earth element.

" This means that [things] other

than earth are also empty. The other three elements are all just like this. One interpretation has it that there is this separate question because the source of disease is the four elements.

"[Vimalakīrti] answered,

'[This illness] is not

related to the earth element'" means that the Dharma body is not related to the earth element, and "It is also not removed from the earth element" means that the illness [Vimalakīrti has manifested] in response [to the illness of sentient beings] is also not removed from the earth element. From "However, the illnesses of sentient beings" is the third item, concluding [the explanation of why Vimalakīrti's] illness has no [attributes]. It can also [be said] that the conclusion is that the Dharma body is without any real perceptual attributes of illness that can be seen. From "Mañjuśrī asked Vimalakīrti, ['How should a bodhisattva comfort and instruct a bodhisattva who is ill?']" is the second of Mañjuśrī's personal questions, the general discussion for the sake of other, newly trained bodhisattvas. This is further unpacked in two parts. The first explains how to comfort and instruct [bodhisattvas who are ill]; the second explains how [bodhisattvas who are ill should] discipline [their minds]. Comforting and instructing is the practice of transforming others; disciplining [the mind] is the self-cultivation [of bodhisattvas]. This is because the text asks how bodhisattvas should comfort bodhisattvas who are ill. As for discipline, the text asks,

"How should bodhisattvas who are ill discipline their minds?" To "comfort" means to put at ease and console; to "instruct" means to reveal and make aware.

We can discuss three divisions of "comforting and instructing. " The first

is that although there are the differences of superior and inferior from the initial stage and above, the contemplation of truth and the understanding that is manifested are the same. Therefore, although one skillfully comforts others, one does not comfort oneself. The second is that from the sixth mind and below there is only self-comforting and not comforting others. The third is 166

Chapter Five: Mañjuśrī's Inquiring about the Illness

that although one enters the established ranks from the seventh mind and above, there is not yet true understanding and so, being ill [himself, the bodhisattva] is not able to excellently transform beings. Therefore [the bodhisattva] is comforted by others and also comforts others. One interpretation is that although there is contemplation of the truth [in the stages from] the seventh mind and below it is not yet constantly manifested, and so comforting is necessary. "Comforting and instructing" is the fifth of the six discussions born of [Vimalakīrti's manifesting] his illness. There are two questions and answers. "Mañjuśrī asked Vimalakīrti,

'What should a bodhisattva who is not ill say

to comfort and instruct a bodhisattva who is ill?'" When one becomes ill in body or mind, the weakened body is very tired and bothered by many troubles. Right thought becomes muddled and confused, and the mind is always in pain. How can you have the leisure to strive for the Way? Therefore it is necessary to be skillfully comforted by another person, [which helps one] calm the mind and advance toward the underlying principle. Thus [Mañjuśrī] asked,

"What should a bodhisattva who is not ill say to comfort and instruct a bodhisattva who is ill?" Even if [the bodhisattvas] are of the same rank they may comfort each other.

There is a question, however. Here, Mañjuśrī has come to deliver [the Buddha's] message [of consolation]; that is, Mañjuśrī, who [has come to] inquire about [Vimalakīrti's] illness, should be comforting and instructing [Vimalakīrti]. What does it mean, then, that conversely he is asking [Vimalakīrti, who is ill, [this question]? There are, in short, three interpretations of the meaning [of this]. The first is that because [Vimalakīrti] is ill many people will gather, and in the knowledgeable one's comfort and instruction there surely will be skilled comfort and instruction. The second is that the person who is ill knows how to ease the illness himself—it cannot be understood by bystanders. The third is as Vimalakīrti has already explained; that is, Vimalakīrti himself is fundamentally not ill but is only ill for the sake of beings, and so too he comforts and instructs [them] skillfully. For these three reasons and contrary [to what you would expect], Vimalakīrti is asked [how to comfort the sick even though he is the one who seems to be ill]. But we aren't yet finished with these three [reasons]. The reason is that the point of this comfort and instruction is surely to put an end to delusion 167

51b

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

and enable one to attain correct resolve. What comfort is needed when one is at ease with being ill? Moreover, even if one is knowledgeable, when he is ill shouldn't you ask how to comfort and instruct him? The principle of what was taught above is that not only is Vimalakīrti skilled—Mañjuśrī, too, is accomplished in the same [realization]. Among those having the same skill, surely the one inquiring about the illness will properly comfort and instruct [the sick person]. Because of these problems, my interpretation is a little different. Investigating the reason that contrary to [what one would expect] Mañjuśrī asks Vimalakīrti [how to comfort bodhisattvas who are ill], it is because to accept and practice comfort and instruction, as well as to discipline [one's mind], just as these things were taught, will certainly be difficult to put into practice. If Mañjuśrī, a master of the Dharma, was not ill, then the assembly gathered at that time would not necessarily believe in [his] purity. Therefore Vimalakīrti, who was ill, was made to give the teachings himself and thereby encourage the newly trained [bodhisattvas]. The second part, Vimalakīrti's answer, is also divided into two: (1) the actual answer, and (2) the conclusion of the answer. The first, the actual answer, is further divided into two parts: the first is the specific teachings that explain how to comfort and instruct [bodhisattvas who are ill]; the second is the miscellaneous teachings that explain how to comfort and instruct [them]. "Teach that the body is impermanent.

" For the [bodhisattvas who are]

ill one should teach that the body is impermanent and that you should rid yourself of desire for and attachment to the body.

"Do not teach aversion

and rejection of the body.

" Again, although teaching [bodhisattvas who are

ill] to contemplate impermanence, while they now remain in samsara they should extensively transform sentient beings. This also means that ordinary people reckon the constant [nature of the world] and so take delight in it and do not feel aversion or rejection [toward it]. [Followers of] the two vehicles contemplate impermanence and therefore feel aversion to the world and do not transform beings. All of these are contrary to the intention of the Buddha and both lose the Middle Way. Bodhisattvas contemplate impermanence and therefore they have neither attachment nor aversion [to the body]. Hence they remain in samsara and extensively transform sentient beings, unlike the prejudices of [those of] the two vehicles and ordinary people. As they marvelously attain the Middle Way, they teach in this way; this is called the 168

Chapter Five: Mañjuśrī's Inquiring about the Illness meaning of comforting and instructing bodhisattvas who are ill. The next three lines are the same.

"Teach the suffering of the body but do not teach the aspiration for nirvana. " Although you contemplate the suffering of the body, you should not be like [followers of] the two vehicles and believe only in your own salvation, abandoning the transformation of others.

"Teach that the body is without

self yet [also teach] the instruction and guidance of sentient beings. " Although

one contemplates no-self, one uses a provisional self to instruct and transform sentient beings—unlike [followers of] the two vehicles who contemplate no-self and abandon the transformation of others.

"Teach the empty quiescence of the body but do not teach ultimate extinction. " Although one contemplates empty quiescence, it is not like the [followers of the] two vehicles who only seize upon ultimate extinction and abandon the transformation of others.

From "Teach repentance of former transgressions" is the second [part of Vimalakīrti's answer], miscellaneous teachings that explain comforting and instructing. One interpretation has it that this explains comforting and instructing as the four pure strivings.

"Teach repentance of former transgressions but do not teach that they are relegated to the past.

" Although you should teach that illness is entirely a result of one's past karmic transgressions and that one should sincerely repent those mistakes, you should not teach that transgressions have a fixed nature and are thus relegated to the past. If you believe that the nature of the transgressions is relegated to the past, transgressions will not be extinguished. One interpretation has it that although you repent of your former transgressions, there is no extinguishing the body [that is a result of those] past [transgressions]. "Use your own illness to commiserate with the illnesses of others. " You

should teach by comparing yourself to others, [thinking] that even while your own minor suffering [is hard to bear], how much more difficult must be the heavy suffering of the three paths. Therefore you should endeavor to bestow the teachings [upon others]. Non-Buddhist texts say, "To be able to

take what is near as an example can be called the art of humanity. "

"Know the suffering of innumerable kalpas of suffering of past lives, and [thus] be mindful of benefiting all sentient beings. " One should teach

169

51c

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

that knowing that the evil karma created in past lives is the reason for the present experience of the suffering of illness, you can infer that if you do not do evil now then in the future you will surely be without suffering, and you will earnestly [teach and] transform beings. Dharma Master Sengzhao says, "You should know the immeasurable suffering of previous lives; present suffering [is instantaneous]—how can our anxiety and suffering ever completely be exhausted? [Just exert yourself] to relieve that suffering. "

"You should remember the good you have cultivated, be mindful of [engaging in] pure livelihood, and not give rise to anxiety and worry. " This

means that you should remember the good that you have done and take it as your precious treasure. You should only cultivate correct practices, be mindful of [engaging in] pure livelihood, and not take up a wrong livelihood in order to cure an illness of the body.

"Wrong livelihood" is to embellish, flatter, and

strive in order to preserve one's life.

"Always arouse diligent perseverance—you should become a physician king and cure the myriad illnesses.

" That is to say, strive for goodness and

to transform beings.

"Bodhisattvas who, in this way, comfort and instruct bodhisattvas who are ill, will make them happy.

" This is the second part,

the conclusion of [Vimalakīrti's] answer. It means that bodhisattvas who are not ill should comfort and instruct those who are ill, as explained above; encourage them to remember self-cultivation and the transformation of others; and cause them to give rise to the mind that aspires to the Way. One interpretation has it that the first half of these verses illustrates true knowing and the latter half illustrates phenomenal knowledge. It is fine to understand this as you wish.

From "Mañjuśrī said,

'How should bodhisattvas who are ill control their

minds?'" is the second part [of the second of Mañjuśrī's personal questions that make up the general discussion for the sake of the other, newly trained bodhisattvas], explaining [how bodhisattvas who are ill should] discipline [their minds].

"Disciplining" [the mind] has three further distinctions. The first is that although the sixth mind and below has the aspect of disciplining [the mind], there is not yet understanding of the underlying principle. Because there can be retrogression from this rank, the discipline may be lost or become unclear. The second is that although there are qualitative differences from the initial level and above, the contemplation of truth is the same, and so 170

Chapter Five: Mañjuśrī's Inquiring about the Illness

there is no recourse to [mental] discipline. The third is that although from the seventh mind up through the thirty [grades] of mind one has entered the established ranks, there is not yet true understanding and thus [mental] discipline is necessary. One interpretation has it that all [bodhisattvas] from the seventh mind and above, [as well as all bodhisattvas] below the seventh level, need [to cultivate mental] discipline. The reason is that we can know [bodhisattvas] prior to the [ten] abodes, but [bodhisattvas] from the initial stage to the seventh level are not yet able to completely illuminate both [emptiness and existence] even though they contemplate truth. Accordingly, because there are qualitative differences there is also the need to discipline [the mind]. This section also has two parts, the question and the answer. The question is this: when you are ill, the affliction of the illness muddles and confuses right thought and you are not able to be mindful of the Way. How then should you discipline your mind and strive for the Way?

Vimalakīrti's answer further unfolds in three parts. The first, from the beginning up to "The one who has simultaneously eliminated old age, sickness, and death is called a bodhisattva,

" explains disciplining [the mind] in terms

of the two practices of self-cultivation and the transformation of others. The second, from "Those bodhisattvas who are ill should have this thought" up to "[the bodhisattva] does not [seek] eternal extinction—this is called expedient means,

" explains disciplining [the mind] by exhorting [the bodhisattvas] to eliminate attachment. The third, from "Mañjuśrī, thus should bodhisattvas who are ill discipline their minds" up to the end of the chapter, extensively clarifies the bodhisattvas' many and varied practices of the Middle Way and fully concludes the topic of [how bodhisattvas who are ill should] discipline [their minds].

The first part, explaining disciplining [the mind] in terms of the two practices, further unfolds in three divisions. The first explains disciplining the mind by reflecting upon self-cultivation. The second, from "Bodhisattvas who are ill should use that which is not experienced to experience the various experiences, " [explains] disciplining the mind by reflecting upon the transformation of others. The third, from "Mañjuśrī, this is how bodhisattvas who are ill [discipline their minds], " concludes both of the previous two divisions.

The first division, exhorting [bodhisattvas] to reflect upon self-cultivation, has two further parts. The first explains disciplining the mind by contemplating 171

52a

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

the emptiness of provisional designations. The second, from "In order to extinguish the conception of dharmas, those bodhisattvas who are ill [should have this thought],

" explains disciplining the mind through the contemplation of the emptiness of real dharmas.

The first part, contemplating [the emptiness of] provisional designations, itself has three parts. The first is the direct explanation of contemplating the provisional and disciplining the mind. The second, from "Further, the arising of this illness,

" [explains] contemplating and knowing the source of the illness and thereby disciplining the mind. The third, from "You should give rise to the conception of dharmas,

" explains disciplining the mind by bringing up

real dharmas and going beyond provisional designations. The first part, directly explaining the contemplation of provisional designations and disciplining the mind, has two further aspects. The first is directly contemplating [that the bodhisattva's illness] is provisional and without reality and thereby disciplining the mind. The second is the interpretation. "My present illness entirely stems from the deluded thoughts, confused thinking, and many mental afflictions of my previous lives. " "Deluded

thoughts" refers to the reckoning that the ten thousand dharmas are real. Cross-grained reckoning of the four alternatives is taken as "confused thinking. " With deluded thoughts, confused thinking, and many mental afflictions as a cause, the body is born. This line explains the cause of the illness. "There are no real dharmas—who could experience illness?" This is the actual explanation that there are only provisional and no real [dharmas]. That is to say, because there are only provisional and no real [dharmas], so too there is no practitioner who becomes ill. One interpretation has it that the prior line means that because the cause is unreal, "there are no real dharmas.

" "Who could experience illness?" means that the result is false. "There

are no real dharmas" is common to both the first and second [lines]. The second aspect is the interpretation. A question is raised as to why there is nobody who experiences [illness]. [Vimalakīrti] explains that "Because of the four elements coming together, we provisionally designate this as a body. The four elements are without a master, and so too the body is without a self.

" Hence we say that there is no one who experiences suffering. From "Further, the arising of this illness" is the second part, giving the source of the illness.

172

Chapter Five: Mañjuśrī's Inquiring about the Illness "Further, the arising of this illness is entirely due to attachment to self. "

This actually gives the source of the illness. "Therefore you should not give

rise to attachment to self.

" This means that you should not be attached. "Knowing the source of the illness, you should eliminate the conception of self and the conception of sentient beings. " This means that you should not

be attached; you should contemplate no-self and thereby eliminate the self. Having gotten rid of the vexation of self, the sixteen views [of self] will simultaneously be destroyed. Therefore it says, "and [eliminate] the conception of sentient beings, " abridging [all sixteen heretical views of self] into one.

From "You should give rise to the conception of dharmas" is the third part, disciplining the mind by going beyond provisional designations through the truth of dharmas.

"You should give rise to the conception of dharmas" means that you should know that the body is only the coming together of the five skandhas; there is no real sentient being. "The arising [of the body] is only the arising of dharmas; the extinction [of the body] is only the extinction of dharmas. " This means that it is only

the five skandhas that arise and pass into extinction—there is no separately fixed spirit or self of a sentient being that arises and passes into extinction. "Further, these dharmas do not know each other; when they arise, they do not say,

'I have arisen'; when they pass into extinction, they do not say, 'I

have passed into extinction.

'" This means that the dharmas of the five skan dhas do not know one another. This shows that you should push your thinking as taught above and thereby discipline your mind. From "The bodhisattva who is ill" is the second part of [the teaching of how to] discipline your mind through reflecting upon self-cultivation, the explanation of disciplining the mind through contemplation of the emptiness of real dharmas. This has three further aspects. The first shows that you should abandon the mind that reckons that dharmas are real. The second, from "What should be abandoned?"

, gives the dharmas that should be abandoned. The third, from "Attaining impartiality, " concludes with ultimate

emptiness.

"In order to extinguish the conception of dharmas, bodhisattvas who are ill [should have this thought].

" That is to say, [they should have this thought] in order to extinguish belief in the concept of the reality of dharmas. "[The

173

52b

52c

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra bodhisattva] should have this thought: 'this conception of dharmas is also confused thinking.

" This means that the mind that reckons that the five skan dhas really exist is also confused. "Confused thinking itself is a great vexation—I should abandon it. " This means that because of this confused thinking the future will surely bring suffering and vexation. Therefore one should cultivate the Way and abandon [confused thinking]. This teaches that [arising] from [such a] cause, the result too must be problems and vexation. From "What should be abandoned?" is the second aspect, giving the dharmas that should be abandoned.

"What is to be abandoned? Abandon [the notions of] 'self' and 'properties of the self.

'" Ordinary people take the five skandhas as properties of the self; holy people take nirvana as a property of the self. This refers to the sense of properties of the self held by both the ordinary and the holy. "What is it to

abandon [the notions of] 'self' and 'properties of the self'? It is [to abandon] the two dharmas.

" This lists the essential nature of what is to be abandoned. The "two dharmas" are (1) the dharmas that ordinary people take as belonging to the self, and (2) the dharmas that the holy take as belonging to the self. "What is it to abandon the two dharmas? Do not think of either internal or external dharmas and practice impartiality. " This gives the essential nature

of what is to be abandoned.

"Internal" means one's own sense of a property of the self. It can also be the internal sense of a property of the self held by both ordinary and holy people.

"External" means others' sense of a property of the self. It can also mean the provisionally designated self of ordinary [people] and holy ones.

"What is practicing equality? It is called the equality of self and the equality of nirvana.

" This gives a name to what is to be abandoned. It means to take the superior and make it equal to the inferior, all entirely and equally empty.

"Why? It is because both self and nirvana are empty. " This explains

the above "equality.

" "Why are they empty? They are but names and thus are empty.

" This is a second explanation that both are empty. It shows that [self and nirvana] are only names and without reality, therefore [both are] empty; they are not forcibly emptied.

"Thus these two dharmas do not have a fixed nature.

" This concludes that the two dharmas of the five skandhas and nirvana are all empty and without a fixed nature. It is also said that "internal" refers 174

Chapter Five: Mañjuśrī's Inquiring about the Illness to the five skandhas, and "external" refers to things like mountains, rivers, and the like.

One interpretation has it that everything up to "How to abandon the two dharmas? Do not think of either internal or external dharmas and practice impartiality" refers only to the sense of property of the self held by ordinary people. The "two dharmas" refer to the two karmic retributions, that is, circumstantial retribution and direct retribution. From "What is [practicing] impartiality?" illustrates that the ten thousand dharmas are all empty and equal. Here, then, when it says "Thus these two dharmas do not have a fixed nature, " it is

referring to self and nirvana as the "two [dharmas]. " It could also be said that

the above "two [dharmas]" refer to "self" and "property of the self. "

From "When you attain this impartiality" is the third aspect, concluding with ultimate emptiness. It could also be concluding by using emptiness to remove emptiness.

"When you attain this impartiality there will be no other illness. " The

illness of belief in real existence will be forever exhausted. "There is only

the illness of emptiness.

" There is only the illness of one-sided emptiness. "The illness of emptiness is also empty.

" This is to say that the [one-sided

illness that] calculates emptiness is also empty. Generally, the hearts of beings are easily influenced, hence dharmas are first used to eliminate [the sense of] self; next emptiness is used to eliminate the dharmas; and finally, ultimate emptiness is used to empty emptiness—and this is the ultimate realm, with no vexation.

From "Bodhisattvas who are ill should use that which is not experienced [to experience the various experiences]" is the second [of the three divisions that] explain disciplining [the mind] in terms of the two practices, [that is,] explaining [how to] discipline the mind by reflecting upon the transformation of others. There are many scholarly understandings of this, and they should be outlined in order to interpret them. Here, however, I am not going to follow these divisions and will simply interpret according to the text; in other words, I am saying that I am going to skip what is unclear. "Bodhisattvas who are ill should use that which is not experienced to experience the various experiences.

" This means that great beings are primordially without the karma [that would result in their] having a body that 175

53a

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

experiences [things]. It is only because of their desire to transform beings that they take up a body [in one of] the six paths [of samsara]. "They do not

complete the Buddha-Dharma nor extinguish experience, yet they seize realization. " This means that the sentient beings that are transformed are not yet complete in the Buddha-Dharma, and so in the end [the bodhisattvas] do not extinguish [experiences] individually, yet they seize their own realization. These two lines illustrate their kindness, which is able to bestow bliss. "Given the suffering of the body, [the bodhisattva] is mindful of sentient beings in the evil destinies and arouses a mind of great compassion. " This

means that the great beings forget the suffering of their bodies, [yet they remember that sentient beings have] the same suffering and therefore [they strive] to transform [sentient beings]. This line illustrates their compassion, which is able to remove suffering.

"Having disciplined myself, I should now

discipline all sentient beings.

" This means that in this way, [the bodhisattva] should take [the suffering and joy] of all sentient beings to be the same as their own suffering and joy.

"Only eliminate the illness, but do not eliminate the dharmas. " Above

it simply said,

"discipline [all] sentient beings,

" but it did not explain the

nature of "discipline.

" Therefore, from here it explains the attributes of this "discipline.

" Above [it said that although] dharmas are themselves non existent, deluded thinking takes them to be existent. Therefore it says that although you should just eliminate the illness of deluded thinking, there is no need to eliminate dharmas. One interpretation has it that you should just eliminate the illness of sentient beings' deluded thinking, but not eliminate the dharmas that are able to transform [and teach sentient beings]. Another interpretation says that bodhisattvas teach people: although they have eradicated the cause of samsara they remain within samsara, and through the four virtues they benefit beings.

"But do not eliminate the dharmas.

" This is different from the annihilation of the body, extinction of the mind, and [thereby the] elimination of the calamity of samsaric dharmas that are taught to people in the two vehicles.

"[Bodhisattvas] teach and guide them (i.e., sentient beings) in order to eradicate the source of illness.

" Above it simply said that the illness should

be eliminated but it did not clarify the means to eliminate [the illness]. From here, therefore, the means to eliminate [the illness] are explained. This has 176

Chapter Five: Mañjuśrī's Inquiring about the Illness

two parts: (1) initially setting out two sections, and (2), from "What [is the source of their illness]?"

, explaining the two sections.

"In order to eradicate

the source of illness" is the section that sets out the [motivation—that is, eliminating the] source of illness.

"[Bodhisattvas] teach and guide them" is

the section that establishes the means of eliminating [illness]. This means that because [bodhisattvas] wish to eradicate the source of beings' illnesses, they employ the means of eliminating [the source of illness], which is teaching and guiding them.

"What is meant by the source of their illness? It means grasping at objects of consciousness. Because there is grasping at objects of consciousness, there is the source of illness.

" This describes the deluded mind that by grasping

at the various objects reckons [them] to exist where they do not exist. This creates the karma that is the source of their illness. This line is the actual explanation of the source of their illness.

"What objects of consciousness

are grasped? It is the triple world.

" This gives the things that are the objects

of consciousness.

From "What is it to eradicate the grasping at objects of consciousness?" is the section that explains the method of eliminating [grasping at objects of consciousness].

"What is it to eradicate the grasping at objects of consciousness? It is to be without anything that is attained [by consciousness]. If there is nothing that is attained, then there is no grasping at objects of consciousness. " This

says that if you are able to understand that objects are empty and that there is nothing that is attained, then grasping at objects of consciousness will naturally abate.

"What is meant by non-attainment? It means [eliminating] the two views. What is meant by the two views? It means the view that there is an internal [object] and the view that there is an external [object], where [in reality] there is nothing to be attained.

" This gives the object of nonattainment. One's own five skandhas are [the object of] the internalist view, and the five skandhas of others are the [object of] the externalist view. It can also be said that all of the objects outside of the five skandhas are the [objects of] the externalist view. This means that if you are able to thoroughly realize the emptiness of the two views, then the source of the illness will naturally die away.

177

53b

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

From "Mañjuśrī, [this is how bodhisattvas who are ill control their minds]" is the third [of the three divisions that] explain disciplining [the mind] in terms of the two practices, concluding both of the [previous two divisions that describe] the two practices of self[-cultivation] and [the transformation of] others. This itself has two parts: (1) concluding by way of giving a doctrinal explanation, and (2) concluding by way of giving an example. "This is how bodhisattavas who are ill discipline their minds. " This

means that, as explained above, if you clearly realize that the provisional and the real are empty, if there is attachment to nothing and you are also able to remember the practices of both self and other—this is the means whereby bodhisattvas who are ill discipline their minds.

"This is the eradication of

the suffering of old age, sickness, and death; this is the bodhiof the bodhisattva. " This means that cultivating the practice as [explained] above and [thereby] eliminating the suffering of old age, sickness, and death for oneself as well as others is called the bodhiof the bodhisattva. "If it is not like this,

then all of that [bodhisattva's] prior cultivation and restraint will be without [discerning] awareness or benefit.

" This means that although there might be

cultivation of the practices, if one does not eradicate the suffering of both self and other there is neither sufficient [discerning] awareness internally nor sufficient benefit externally.

The second part concludes by giving an example.

"For example, someone

who is victorious over enemies is considered a hero. " This means that those

who overcome their own enemies and also vanquish the enemies of others are called brave.

"Just like this, the one who has simultaneously eliminated old age, sickness, and death is called a bodhisattva. " This brings together

[the doctrine and the example] and can be understood. From "Bodhisattvas who are ill should have this thought" is the second [of the three parts of Vimalakīrti's explanation of how to] discipline [the mind], the explanation of disciplining the mind by exhorting [bodhisattvas] to eliminate attachment. This teaches that even if you discipline [your mind] by thinking about self-cultivation and the transformation of others, if you believe in self and other as the two objects of your practice then your practice will not be extensive. You will not be able to identify with the suffering and joy of beings. Therefore [bodhisattvas who are ill] are exhorted to eliminate attachment. This also has four levels. The first is the actual exhortation [that 178

Chapter Five: Mañjuśrī's Inquiring about the Illness bodhisattvas] should eliminate attachment. The second is the explanation. The third, from "[Those bodhisattvas] will be born without bonds, " gives

both bondage and freedom as illustrations of the prior explanation. The fourth, from "What is meant by bondage? What is meant by freedom?" , further

describes bondage and freedom.

"Just as my illness is neither real nor existent. . . . " [Illness] is provisional,

and hence "not real"; that is, it is empty and therefore "not existent. " This

line exhorts [bodhisattvas] to not be attached to self. In the same way, the line "The illness of sentient beings is neither real nor existent" exhorts [bodhisattvas] to not be attached to others. These two lines exhort [bodhisattvas to contemplate] the unreal and provisional [nature of self and other]. "If, when

engaging in this contemplation, great compassion for sentient beings arises based on affectionate views, it should be rejected. " This means that while

compassion [born of] affectionate views might be good, because it is based on a belief in perceptual attributes it is unable to equalize the two objects of self and other or extensively transform sentient beings; therefore it says that [great compassion based on affectionate views] should be rejected. From "Why?" is the second level, the explanation. A question is expressed as to why compassion born of affectionate views should be rejected. "Bodhisattvas eradicate and eliminate adventitious mental afflictions and give rise to great compassion.

" This means that because bodhisattvas eradicate

the adventitious mental afflictions of self and other, they give rise to great compassion that is devoid of perceptual attributes. Wishing to deny compassion born of affectionate views, this line first affirms great compassion devoid of perceptual attributes. Interpretations of "adventitious" are not uniform. Some say that the root of the tree is the master and the branches are "adventitious. "

Others say that anything existing outside of the underlying principle is "adventitious. " The meaning [I] will adopt is that anything that is not virtuous does not constantly abide in the underlying principle, and in the end those will be the things that are eliminated—hence, they are "adventitious. "

"Compassion born of affectionate views will lead to a mind that feels fatigue and aversion toward samsara.

" This line explains that compassion

born of affectionate views is a mistake and therefore should be eliminated. "If [the bodhisattva] is able to abandon this [kind of compassion], then there will be no fatigue and aversion and wherever he is born he will not be blinded 179

53c

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

by affectionate views.

" This line is the actual disclosure of the meaning of the exhortation to eliminate [attachment].

From "[Those bodhisattvas] will be born without bonds" is the third level, giving both bondage and freedom to illustrate the prior explanation. What is being said here is that transforming beings comes first from simply wishing to eliminate one's own evil.

"[Those bodhisattvas] will be born without bonds and they will be able to teach the Dharma to sentient beings and free them from their bonds.

" This means that because their self-cultivation

is pure they will be born able to free others from their bonds. Therefore it says that they will not be blinded by any affectionate views. This line is the actual disclosure of the above interpretation.

Next the authentic words of the Buddha are given as proof: "It is as the Buddha has explained: 'If a person has bonds themselves, there is no way they will be able to free others from their bonds. If a person has no bonds themselves, then it is possible for them to free others from their bonds. '"

This means that the arising of both good and evil begins with oneself and not others.

"Therefore, bodhisattvas should not give rise to bonds. " This is

the conclusion that one should not be attached.

Question: It is possible that an ordinary person with a scattered mind [nonetheless] gives a fine explanation of the way of meditation. A student examines the teaching, cultivates and practices it, and attains profound peace. Moreover, an ordinary person with a confused mind might give a teaching on the ten levels with only a shallow understanding, yet a student investigating and practicing [that teaching] might attain an understanding that progresses through the levels. Going by this, it is not entirely the case, as was said, that a person who themelves has bonds is not able to free others from their bonds. Further, the Tathāgata was the epitome of freedom from bondage, yet [his disciple] Sunakṣatra gave rise to heretical views. Also, Śāriputra was free of bonds, yet the delusions and fallacies of his two disciples grew ever greater. So it is also not always the case that [only] if one is without bonds [himself] is he able to free others of their bonds.

Explanation: In short, there are two ways of benefiting by following others: (1) following their practice, and (2) following their teachings. What is being explained here relates only to practice. The problem raised here is about benefiting from the teachings of an ordinary person with a scattered 180

Chapter Five: Mañjuśrī's Inquiring about the Illness

mind—it is perhaps like this because what is discussed [follows the ordinary person's] teachings but not their behavior in practice. If you follow their practice, your bonds will increase because their practice is [afflicted by] bonds. Increasing virtue, however, is explained only in terms of the teaching [given by a person who is] free of bonds. You mention Sunakṣatra's eradication of his virtuous roots in the present, but if it were not for the Tathāgata's [allowing him to be in the sangha] he would also have eradicated all causes for future [benefit]—how then can you say that Sunakṣatra did not benefit from the Buddha?

As for the ever-increasing confusion and fallacies of Śāriputra's two disciples, this was because they learned his erroneous teachings. If they had followed his practice, which was that of an [arhat who had reached the stage of] no more learning, then they too would have been able to reach [the stage] of no more learning. This is not so clear, however. Although there is practice and teaching, this is the practice and teaching of an ordinary person. If it is the practice and erroneous teachings of Śāriputra, how could it be that only his practice was ordinary but his teachings were not ordinary teachings? It also could be that while the practices were Śāriputra's, the erroneous teachings were not Śāriputra's [teachings].

In my opinion, if we look at the details—what isn't like this? It is like this because here we are simply discussing the way things are in this world. From the point of view of the way of worldly things, the rejection of evil and the pursuit of virtue must begin with oneself—then you can encourage [other] people [to do the same]. If you are unable to do this yourself, how will you be able to urge others forward? If we really want to discuss increasing virtue and giving rise to evil, although both ordinary people and holy ones can bring forth evil [in others, the evil caused by holy ones] is not as great as that caused by ordinary people. So, too, although both ordinary people and holy ones [bring about an] increase in virtue [in others, the virtue caused by ordinary people] is not nearly as beautiful as that brought about by holy ones. This being the principle [of how things are in this world], it indeed explains the reach of bondage and freedom.

From "What is meant by bondage? What is meant by freedom?" is the fourth level [of the second part of Vimalakīrti's three explanations of controlling the mind], the further description of the attributes of bondage and 181

54a

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

freedom. Above it simply spoke of bondage and freedom but did not illustrate their attributes, and so [the attributes] are [now more fully] described. This unfolds in three parts. The first simply uses meditative concentration and skillful means to straightaway illuminate the essential nature of bondage and freedom. The second, from "Further, [discerning] awareness without skillful means is bondage,

" takes up skillful means and discerning awareness in order to profoundly describe bondage and freedom. The third, from "Further, to contemplate the body . . . ,

" again summarizes skillful means and discerning

awareness.

"What is meant by bondage? What is meant by freedom? Desire for and attachment to the taste of meditation is the bodhisattva's bondage. " This

means that if you are attached to the taste of meditation then you will not have mastery [over your destiny] and you will be born in accordance with your karma—this is the bodhisattva's bondage.

"Being born though skillful

means is the bodhisattva's freedom.

" This means not being born due to one's

karma but taking birth only in response [to the need for] transforming beings. The ability to have mastery [over one's destiny]—this is the bodhisattva's freedom.

The second part, taking up skillful means and discerning awareness in order to profoundly describe bondage and freedom, is further divided into three. The first initially lays out four topics. The second, from "What is it to say that [discerning] awareness without skillful means is bondage?" , is the

explanation of the four topics in order. The third, from "Mañjuśrī, [those bodhisattvas who are ill should contemplate the dharmas in this way,]" concludes with an exhortation to contemplate freedom from bondage. Skillful means is the mind that traverses existence and accumulates merit; moreover, it has the virtue of being able to aid the understanding of emptiness. Discerning awareness is the understanding that is able to illuminate; moreover, it has the power of being able to lead [all] existence. It is necessary that these two work together.

"[Discerning] awareness without skillful means is bondage. " This is to

say that if you do not have skillful means as an aid, then your understanding of emptiness will dwell in the realization of emptiness and you will not be able to guide [all] existence and transform beings. Hence, this is an understanding of emptiness that is in bondage because of emptiness. "[Discerning]

182

Chapter Five: Mañjuśrī's Inquiring about the Illness awareness with skillful means is freedom.

" This means that if you have

skillful means as an aid, then your understanding of emptiness does not dwell in a one-sided realization of emptiness. Further, you will be able to lead [all] existence and transform beings. Hence, this understanding [of emptiness] is freedom.

"Skillful means without [discerning] awareness is bondage. " If the skillful

means that [attempt] to guide [sentient beings] lacks the awareness of emptiness, then that skillful means will dwell in existence until the final day and never be able to eradicate the entanglements. Therefore this skillful means is in bondage because of existence.

"Skillful means with [discerning] awareness is freedom. " This refers to the guidance [given to sentient beings] with the awareness of emptiness—this skillful means is not in bondage to the mental afflictions, and therefore it attains to freedom. The second part interprets these four topics; they are interpreted in order and can be understood.

"Mañjuśrī, those bodhisattvas who are ill should contemplate the dharmas in this way.

" This is the third aspect, the exhortation to contemplate freedom from bondage. From "Further, to contemplate the body. . . " is the third part

of the description of bondage and freedom, the summary of skillful means and discerning awareness. Before it simply spoke of skillful means and discerning awareness but had not illustrated their attributes. Therefore this is used to illustrate and summarize the attributes; it can be understood. [Where the text says,

"This illness and this body are neither new nor old, "] the "new"

refers to "prior" and the "old" refers to "after. "

From "Mañjuśrī, this is how bodhisattvas who are ill should discipline their minds" is the third part of Vimalakīrti's answer to Mañjuśrī's question explaining [how bodhisattvas should] discipline [their minds], the extensive description of the bodhisattva's numerous and varied practices that concludes the topic of disciplining [the mind]. This has two sections. The first discloses the starting point of the Middle Way generally; the second, from "To be within samsara. . . ,

" lists various practices of the Middle Way. The first section, disclosing the starting point [of the Middle Way], has three further parts. The first straightaway discloses the starting point; the second, from "What is the reason?" , is the interpretation; the third, from "Therefore, " is the concluding exhortation [to cultivate] the Middle Way. 183

54b

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra "[Mañjuśrī,] this is how bodhisattvas who are ill should discipline their minds" discloses the starting point [of the Middle Way]. "[Those bodhisattvas

who are ill] should not dwell within [the disciplined mind]. " [The practice

of the bodhisattva should] not be like the one-sided dwelling within selfcontrol [practiced by followers] of the two vehicles. "Nor should they dwell

within an undisciplined mind.

" Neither should [their practice] be like ordinary people's one-sided dwelling within an undisciplined [mind]. The second part is the interpretation. "To dwell in an undisciplined mind

is the way of a foolish person" explains [what was said] above, "Nor should

they dwell within an undisciplined mind. " "To dwell in the disciplined mind

is the way of the śrāvakas" explains [what was said] above, "[Those bodhisattvas who are ill] should not dwell within [the disciplined mind]. "

From "Therefore" is the third part, the concluding exhortation to [cultivate] the Middle Way; this can be understood. One interpretation has it that "[Those bodhisattvas who are ill] should not dwell within" means "do not be attached to that which has been taught so far. "

From "To be within samsara. . .

" is the second section [of the third part of Vimalakīrti's answer to Mañjuśrī's question regarding how bodhisattvas should discipline their minds], and lists various practices of the Middle Way. "To be in samsara but not undertake polluted practices, to dwell within nirvana but not [dwell within] eternal extinction[—this is the bodhisattva's practice.] [Cultivating] neither the practices of ordinary people nor the practices of the wise sages[—this is the bodhisattva's practice.] [Engaging in] neither defiled practice nor pure practice[—this is the bodhisattva's practice]. " These

six lines all explain dwelling [within a mind that is] not one-sided. "Although beyond the actions of Māra, one manifests as subduing Māra[—this is the bodhisattva's practice]. " This means that in the present

one is born in samsara and subdues Māra. "To seek omniscience but not to

seek it at the wrong time[—this is the bodhisattva's practice]. " The halfway

fruits of realization of the two vehicles are what is meant by "the wrong time.

" It can also be said that [to attempt] to realize the fruits of perfection for oneself while [the task of] transforming beings is not yet finished is called "seeking at the wrong time.

"

"Although contemplating the various dharmas as non-arising, not entering the stage of certainty[—this is the bodhisattva's practice.] Although 184

Chapter Five: Mañjuśrī's Inquiring about the Illness contemplating the twelve links of conditioned arising, entering into heterodox views[—this is the bodhisattva's practice.]" These lines mean that although one contemplates the various dharmas as none other than emptiness, one does not dwell within a one-sided realization of emptiness. It can also [mean] that one is accomplished at transforming beings within [the realm of] existence.

"Although embracing all sentient beings, there is no affectionate attachment[—this is the bodhisattva's practice]. " This means that [the bodhisattva]

is different from ordinary people.

"Although aspiring for detachment, there

is no reliance on the elimination of body and mind[—this is the bodhisattva's practice].

" This means that [the bodhisattva] is different from [followers of] the two vehicles.

"Aspiration for detachment" means abandoning the mental afflictions.

"Although practicing within the triple world, the Dharma-nature is not destroyed[—this is the bodhisattva's practice]. " This means that emptiness is not discarded.

"Although practicing emptiness, there is also the planting of virtuous roots[—this is the bodhisattva's practice]. Although practicing that which is devoid of perceptual attribute, sentient beings are saved[—this is the bodhisattva's practice]. Although practicing the wishless, there is the manifestation of a body[—this is the bodhisattva's practice]. Although practicing nonarising, there is the arising of good deeds[—this is the bodhisattva's practice]. "

These four lines all have the same meaning and can be understood. They can also mean that [the bodhisattva's practice] is not the same as the one-sided [practice] of ordinary people and [followers of] the two vehicles. "Although practicing the six perfections, there is also the universal knowledge of the [minds and] mental attributes of sentient beings[—this is the bodhisattva's practice].

" The six perfections are the practice devoid of

perceptual attributes—yet still [bodhisattvas have] "universal knowledge of the [minds and] the mental attributes of sentient beings. " Although [followers

of] the two vehicles attain the sixth perfection of prajñā, they are not able to contemplate existence and transform beings.

"Although practicing the six powers, the outflows are not exhausted[— this is the bodhisattva's practice]. Although practicing the four immeasurable [states of mind], there is no desire or attachment to birth in the Brahmā worlds[—this is the bodhisattva's practice]. Although practicing meditation, 185

54c

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

concentration, liberation, and samādhi,there is no birth [in the heavens] that accord with that meditation.

" These three lines show that [the bodhisattva]

surpasses ordinary people.

"Although practicing the four foundations of mindfulness, there is no permanent abandoning of body, sensations, mind, and dharmas[—this is the bodhisattva's practice]. Although practicing the four right efforts, there is no forsaking the exertion of body and mind[—this is the bodhisattva's practice]. "

These two lines show that [the bodhisattva's practice of] the four states of mindfulness and [four right] efforts are not the same as that of [followers of] the two vehicles, which only seeks to extinguish body and mind. "Although practicing the four supernatural powers, there is attainment of mastery of the spiritual powers[—this is the bodhisattva's practice]. " This

means that although [the bodhisattva's] practice of the four supernatural powers is the same as that of [followers of the] two vehicles, [the bodhisattva] attains the Mahayana mastery of the spiritual powers. "Although practicing the five faculties, there is discrimination of the sharp and dull faculties of sentient beings[—this is the bodhisattva's practice]. "

This means that although [the bodhisattva] is able [to dwell within] the emptiness of the five [sense] faculties, he is also able to discriminate the sharp and dull faculties [of sentient beings]. [Followers of] the two vehicles are able to know their own [faculties] but they are not able to know the faculties of others.

"Although practicing the five powers, there is also aspiration to seek [the Buddha's] ten powers[—this is the bodhisattva's practice]. " This means

that [the bodhisattva's practice] is not the same as the practice of the five powers in the two vehicles, which seeks to enter the perception of truth. "Although practicing the seven factors of awakening, there is also discrimination of the discerning awareness of the buddhas[—this is the bodhisattva's practice].

" This means that [the bodhisattva's practice] is not the same as the practice of the seven factors of awakening in the two vehicles, which only seeks the fruits of arhatship.

"Although practicing the eightfold noble path, there is also aspiration to cultivate the immeasurable path of the buddhas[—this is the bodhisattva's practice].

" This means that [the bodhisattva's practice] is not the same as the practice of the eightfold noble [path] in the two vehicles, which puts an end 186

Chapter Five: Mañjuśrī's Inquiring about the Illness to the eight kinds of evil.

"Although practicing tranquility and insight, the

supporting factors of the path, there is no ultimate falling into quiescent extinction[—this is the bodhisattva's practice].

" "Tranquility" refers to a

state of concentration; "insight" refers to [discerning] awareness. These two are excellent factors that support the path. This means that although there is cultivation [of tranquility and insight], there is no falling into nirvana. "Although practicing with the various dharmas as non-arising and nonextinguishing, there is the ornamentation of the body with the [thirty-two] marks and [eighty] auspicious signs [of a buddha—this is the bodhisattva's practice].

" This means that [the bodhisattva's practice] is not like that of the two vehicles, in which emptiness is contemplated but practice within [the realm of] existence is not possible.

"Although practicing with the authority and decorum of the śrāvakaand pratyekabuddha, the Buddha-Dharma is not forsaken[—this is the bodhisattva's practice]. Although according with the ultimately pure attribute of the various dharmas, this body is manifested as needed[—this is the bodhisattva's practice]. Although contemplating the various buddha realms as eternally quiescent like space, the many and various pure buddha lands are manifested[—this is the bodhisattva's practice]. " These three lines are the same

and can be understood.

"Although attaining the buddha way, turning the wheel of Dharma, and entering into nirvana, the way of the bodhisattva is not forsaken[—this is the bodhisattva's practice].

" This is to say that although bodhisattvas actually attain the buddha way, they do not forsake the practices of the bodhisattva. This means that even when attaining buddhahood they do not forsake [the practices of] the bodhisattva. Indeed, this means none other than to realize the Middle [Way].

From "When [Vimalakīrti] taught this Dharma" is the third part of the actual description of [Mañjuśrī's] inquiry about [Vimalakīrti's] illness, describing the benefits received by the assembly at that time. 187

55a