The Disciples Decline, Part II
弟子品第三（下）
The second five of the Buddha's ten great disciples — Kātyāyana, Aniruddha, Upāli, Rāhula, and finally Ānanda himself — each recall their own past encounter with Vimalakīrti and ask to be excused, completing the roll call of all ten.
- This part covers
- Mahākātyāyana (foremost in explaining doctrine), Aniruddha (foremost in the divine eye), Upāli (foremost in monastic discipline), Rāhula (the Buddha's own son, foremost in inconspicuous practice), and Ānanda (foremost in retention) — each declines in turn, completing all ten of the Buddha's great disciples begun in Part 3.
- What follows
- With every disciple having declined, the Buddha turns next to the bodhisattvas in the assembly, in Part 5.
6. Kātyāyana and the Deeper Meaning of Impermanence
佛告摩訶迦旃延：「汝行詣維摩詰問疾。」迦旃延白佛言：「世尊！我不堪任詣彼問疾。所以者何？憶念昔者，佛為諸比丘略說法要，我即於後，敷演其義，謂無常義、苦義、空義、無我義、寂滅義。時維摩詰來謂我言：『唯，迦旃延！無以生滅心行說實相法。迦旃延！諸法畢竟不生不滅，是無常義；五受陰洞達空無所起，是苦義；諸法究竟無所有，是空義；於我、無我而不二，是無我義；法本不然，今則無滅，是寂滅義。』說是法時，彼諸比丘心得解脫。故我不任詣彼問疾。」
The Buddha said to Mahākātyāyana: "Go and inquire after Vimalakīrti's illness." Kātyāyana said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, I am not able to go and inquire after his illness. And why? I recall that once, when the Buddha had briefly set out the essentials of the Dharma for the monks, I went on afterward to expound their meaning in full — the meaning of impermanence, the meaning of suffering, the meaning of emptiness, the meaning of no-self, and the meaning of cessation. Vimalakīrti came and said to me: 'Ah, Kātyāyana — do not use a mind of arising and ceasing to expound the Dharma of true reality. Kātyāyana: that every phenomenon ultimately neither arises nor ceases — this is the meaning of impermanence. That the five aggregates of grasping, seen through fully, are empty and never arisen at all — this is the meaning of suffering. That every phenomenon is, in the end, without anything at all — this is the meaning of emptiness. That self and no-self are not two — this is the meaning of no-self. That the Dharma was never, in the first place, kindled, and so now has nothing that needs to be extinguished — this is the meaning of cessation.' When he taught this Dharma, the minds of those monks were liberated. This is why I am not able to go and inquire after his illness."
This exchange is worth reading carefully rather than as a simple correction, since the Buddha himself elsewhere calls Kātyāyana foremost in explaining the meaning of the teachings — Zhu Daosheng raises exactly this question and answers it directly: the Buddha and Kātyāyana are pointing at the same underlying truth; what differs is only how far a given audience can follow it. Kumārajīva's technical distinction is worth having explicitly: the ordinary reading of "impermanence" — that phenomena arise and cease moment to moment — is the coarse, entry-level gate into the teaching, true as far as it goes but still quietly assuming there is a "moment" that genuinely stays even briefly before ceasing. Vimalakīrti's redefinition pushes one level further: if something never truly abides even for an instant, it was never, in the strictest sense, "arising" at all — and a phenomenon that never really arose has nothing that needs to cease either. That, and not the more familiar coarse version, is what "ultimately empty" (畢竟空) actually means, and it is this subtler reading, not a rejection of the first one, that Vimalakīrti is calling the true meaning of impermanence.
The same move repeats across all five terms — suffering, emptiness, no-self, cessation — each redefined not as a correction of Kātyāyana's account but as its own deepest implication, carried all the way through. It is a useful passage for noticing something this sūtra does more than once: Vimalakīrti rarely tells a senior disciple they are simply wrong. He shows them that the logical endpoint of their own teaching, followed without stopping partway, arrives somewhere considerably stranger than where they had settled.
7. Aniruddha and the True Divine Eye
佛告阿那律：「汝行詣維摩詰問疾。」阿那律白佛言：「世尊！我不堪任詣彼問疾。所以者何？憶念我昔於一處經行，時有梵王，名曰嚴淨，與萬梵俱，放淨光明，來詣我所，稽首作禮問我言：『幾何阿那律天眼所見？』我即答言：『仁者！吾見此釋迦牟尼佛土三千大千世界，如觀掌中菴摩勒果。』時維摩詰來謂我言：『唯，阿那律！天眼所見，為作相耶，無作相耶？假使作相，則與外道五通等；若無作相，即是無為，不應有見。』世尊！我時默然。彼諸梵聞其言，得未曾有，即為作禮而問曰：『世孰有真天眼者？』維摩詰言：『有。佛、世尊得真天眼，常在三昧，悉見諸佛國，不以二相。』於是嚴淨梵王及其眷屬五百梵天，皆發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心，禮維摩詰足已，忽然不現。故我不任詣彼問疾。」
The Buddha said to Aniruddha: "Go and inquire after Vimalakīrti's illness." Aniruddha said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, I am not able to go and inquire after his illness. And why? I recall that once, while I was walking in meditation in a certain place, a Brahmā king named Śuddhābha, together with ten thousand other Brahmā gods, came to where I was, radiating pure light, bowed his head to me in homage, and asked me: 'How far does the divine eye of Aniruddha see?' I answered him: 'Sir, I see this buddha-field of Śākyamuni, this whole great trichiliocosm, as clearly as one sees an āmalaka fruit resting in the palm of one's own hand.' Vimalakīrti came and said to me: 'Ah, Aniruddha — is what the divine eye sees a constructed mark, or an unconstructed mark? If it is a constructed mark, then it is no different from the five mundane spiritual powers of the non-Buddhist paths. If it is an unconstructed mark, then it belongs to the unconditioned, and there should be no seeing involved in it at all.' World-Honored One, at that I fell silent. Those Brahmā gods, hearing this, gained something they had never had before, and bowed in homage, asking: 'Who in the world truly has the divine eye?' Vimalakīrti said: 'There is one — the Buddha, the World-Honored One, has attained the true divine eye; he abides always in samādhi, and sees every buddha-land in its entirety, without ever making it into a dualistic mark of a seer and a thing seen.' At this, the Brahmā king Śuddhābha and his retinue of five hundred Brahmā gods all gave rise to the mind of unsurpassed, perfect and complete awakening, and, having bowed at Vimalakīrti's feet, suddenly vanished. This is why I am not able to go and inquire after his illness."
Sengzhao's gloss makes the trap in Vimalakīrti's question precise: a "constructed mark" (作相) is a faculty produced by past karmic formation, like the ordinary body's six senses; an "unconstructed mark" (無作相) belongs to the Dharma-body, and is not produced by karma at all. The dilemma this creates for Aniruddha is genuine, not a rhetorical trick: if his famous clairvoyance is the first kind, then it is, structurally, the same sort of thing the non-Buddhist ascetics' five mundane powers already are — impressive, but not proof of anything specifically sacred. If it is the second kind, then by definition it belongs to the unconditioned Dharma-body, which has no distance, no object, and no seer to speak of — and "seeing a whole trichiliocosm the way one sees a fruit in one's own hand" is exactly the kind of seeing-at-a-distance that could not apply to it. Aniruddha's silence is the correct recognition that his own boast, however accurate as an account of what he can perceive, does not actually answer the question of what kind of seeing it is.
Vimalakīrti's own answer resolves the dilemma by refusing both horns of it: the Buddha's seeing is "always in samādhi" and takes in every buddha-land "without ever making it into a dualistic mark" — not a faculty exercised occasionally and only while absorbed in concentration, the way even Aniruddha's own clairvoyance requires, and not a seeing that still implicitly splits the world into a seer here and lands seen out there. It is worth noting, as a small piece of local color, that the āmalaka fruit Aniruddha reaches for as his simile is the same fruit used elsewhere across the canon as the standard image for total, effortless clarity — which makes his own confident use of it, only to be shown its limits a moment later, a quietly pointed detail in the text.
8. Upāli and the Two Monks' Guilt
佛告優波離：「汝行詣維摩詰問疾。」優波離白佛言：「世尊！我不堪任詣彼問疾。所以者何？憶念昔者，有二比丘犯律行，以為恥不敢問佛，來問我言：『唯，優波離！我等犯律，誠以為恥，不敢問佛，願解疑悔，得免斯咎。』我即為其如法解說。時維摩詰來謂我言：『唯，優波離！無重增此二比丘罪！當直除滅，勿擾其心。所以者何？彼罪性不在內、不在外、不在中間，如佛所說，心垢故眾生垢，心淨故眾生淨。心亦不在內、不在外、不在中間，如其心然，罪垢亦然，諸法亦然，不出於如如。優波離！以心相得解脫時，寧有垢不？』我言：『不也！』維摩詰言：『一切眾生心相無垢，亦復如是。唯，優波離！妄想是垢，無妄想是淨；顛倒是垢，無顛倒是淨；取我是垢，不取我是淨。優波離！一切法生滅不住，如幻如電，諸法不相待，乃至一念不住；諸法皆妄見，如夢、如炎、如水中月、如鏡中像，以妄想生。其知此者，是名奉律；其知此者，是名善解。』於是二比丘言：『上智哉！是優波離所不能及，持律之上而不能說。』我即答言：『自捨如來，未有聲聞及菩薩，能制其樂說之辯，其智慧明達為若此也！』時二比丘疑悔即除，發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心，作是願言：『令一切眾生皆得是辯。』故我不任詣彼問疾。」
The Buddha said to Upāli: "Go and inquire after Vimalakīrti's illness." Upāli said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, I am not able to go and inquire after his illness. And why? I recall that once, two monks had broken the monastic rule and, taking it as a disgrace, dared not ask the Buddha about it; they came instead and said to me: 'Ah, Upāli, we have broken the rule, and we are truly ashamed of it — we dare not ask the Buddha directly. We wish only to have our doubt and regret resolved, and to be freed of this fault.' I explained the matter for them exactly as the rule prescribes. Vimalakīrti came and said to me: 'Ah, Upāli — do not add further to these two monks' offense. You should simply and directly dissolve it, and not further disturb their minds. And why? Because the very nature of that offense is not located within, not located without, and not located anywhere in between. As the Buddha himself has said: it is because the mind is defiled that beings are defiled, and because the mind is pure that beings are pure. The mind, too, is not located within, not located without, and not located anywhere in between. Exactly as the mind is, so too is the defilement of an offense; and so too is every phenomenon — none of them ever depart from suchness itself. Upāli, when you yourself attained liberation through the mark of your own mind, was there, at that moment, any defilement in it at all?' I said: 'No.' Vimalakīrti said: 'It is exactly the same for the mind-mark of every being — there is no defilement in it. Ah, Upāli: false thought is defilement; the absence of false thought is purity. Inverted perception is defilement; the absence of inverted perception is purity. Grasping at a self is defilement; not grasping at a self is purity. Upāli, every phenomenon arises and ceases without staying still, like an illusion, like a flash of lightning; no phenomenon waits for another — not even for the space of a single thought does anything stay. Every phenomenon is only a false seeing, like a dream, like a mirage, like the moon reflected in water, like a reflection in a mirror — all of it arising from false thought alone. Whoever knows this is said to truly uphold the monastic rule; whoever knows this is said to have genuinely understood it.' At this the two monks said: 'What supreme wisdom! This is something even Upāli himself cannot reach — foremost in the discipline, and yet unable to say this.' I replied to them: 'Apart from the Tathāgata himself, there has never been a śrāvaka or a bodhisattva able to match his gift for speaking the Dharma — his wisdom and understanding reach this far!' At that the two monks' doubt and regret were at once dissolved, and they gave rise to the mind of unsurpassed, perfect and complete awakening, making this vow: 'May every being attain this same eloquence.' This is why I am not able to go and inquire after his illness."
Sengzhao's analysis of "the offense is located neither within, nor without, nor in between" gives the abstraction concrete footing: take killing as the test case — an act that requires both a self and another. The act itself is not simply the self's doing, since it depends on the other being present; it is not simply the other's doing either, for the same reason; and since neither side alone contains it, it cannot be located in some third place "between" them either. Traced this way, the offense's supposedly fixed, locatable "nature" dissolves under examination — not because nothing happened, but because guilt was never the kind of thing that could sit at a fixed address to begin with.
This is not, on Kumārajīva's reading, an argument that monastic rules do not matter — this site's translations take care not to flatten passages like this into a simpler teaching than the text actually gives. Vimalakīrti's specific complaint against Upāli's handling of the case is pastoral as much as metaphysical: by explaining the offense precisely according to the letter of the rule — naming it, weighing its severity — Upāli was, however correctly by the book, deepening the two monks' anxious fixation on their own guilt, and it is that fixation itself, the "disturbing of their minds" (擾其心), which is the actual mechanism keeping the defilement in place. The teaching that follows — that defilement has no fixed location because the mind producing it has none either — is offered as the direct remedy for that fixation, not as a technicality overriding the rule. Worth noting, too: Upāli, "foremost in monastic discipline" among all the disciples, does not defend his ground when the two monks marvel at what he could not say — he immediately and generously credits Vimalakīrti outright, a small character grace note easy to miss amid the doctrine.
9. Rāhula and What Going Forth Actually Means
佛告羅睺羅：「汝行詣維摩詰問疾。」羅睺羅白佛言：「世尊！我不堪任詣彼問疾。所以者何？憶念昔時，毘耶離諸長者子來詣我所，稽首作禮，問我言：『唯，羅睺羅！汝佛之子，捨轉輪王位，出家為道。其出家者，有何等利？』我即如法為說出家功德之利。時維摩詰來謂我言：『唯，羅睺羅！不應說出家功德之利。所以者何？無利、無功德，是為出家；有為法者，可說有利、有功德。夫出家者，為無為法，無為法中，無利、無功德。羅睺羅！出家者，無彼無此，亦無中間；離六十二見，處於涅槃；智者所受，聖所行處；降伏眾魔，度五道，淨五眼，得五力，立五根；不惱於彼，離眾雜惡；摧諸外道，超越假名；出淤泥，無繫著；無我所，無所受；無擾亂，內懷喜；護彼意，隨禪定，離眾過；若能如是，是真出家。』於是維摩詰語諸長者子：『汝等於正法中，宜共出家。所以者何？佛世難值！』諸長者子言：『居士！我聞佛言，父母不聽，不得出家。』維摩詰言：『然！汝等便發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心，是即出家，是即具足。』爾時三十二長者子皆發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心，故我不任詣彼問疾。」
The Buddha said to Rāhula: "Go and inquire after Vimalakīrti's illness." Rāhula said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, I am not able to go and inquire after his illness. And why? I recall that once, a group of elders' sons from Vaiśālī came to where I was, bowed their heads to me in homage, and asked me: 'Ah, Rāhula, you are the Buddha's own son — you gave up the throne of a wheel-turning king to go forth and become a renunciant. What benefit is there in going forth?' I answered them, as the teaching prescribes, on the merit and benefit of going forth. Vimalakīrti came and said to me: 'Ah, Rāhula — you should not speak of the merit and benefit of going forth in that way. And why? Because to be without benefit and without merit is what going forth truly means. Only conditioned things can be said to have benefit and to have merit. Going forth is for the sake of the unconditioned, and in the unconditioned there is no benefit and no merit. Rāhula, going forth has no "that," no "this," and nothing in between; it is free of the sixty-two views, and abides in nirvāṇa; it is what the wise receive, and where the noble ones walk; it subdues every demon, crosses beyond the five paths, purifies the five eyes, attains the five powers, and establishes the five faculties; it does not trouble others, and is free of every mixed evil; it overcomes every heterodox path, and goes beyond every provisional name; it emerges from the mire, unattached to anything; it has nothing that belongs to a self, and grasps at nothing; it is without disturbance, and holds joy within; it protects the intentions of others, follows meditative concentration, and is free of every fault. If you can be like this, this is true going forth.' Thereupon Vimalakīrti said to the elders' sons: 'You should all go forth together within the true Dharma. And why? Because a buddha's presence in the world is hard to encounter.' The elders' sons said: 'Householder, we have heard the Buddha say that without our parents' consent, we cannot go forth.' Vimalakīrti said: 'Just so — but if you give rise, right now, to the mind of unsurpassed, perfect and complete awakening, this itself is going forth, and this itself is its full completion.' At that, all thirty-two of the elders' sons gave rise to the mind of unsurpassed, perfect and complete awakening. This is why I am not able to go and inquire after his illness."
Kumārajīva's commentary opens this exchange with the story behind Rāhula's own name, worth having as background: Rāhula gestated for six years, was born only after his father had already gone forth, and his mother Yaśodharā's fidelity was suspected until the family recognized the child's resemblance and the Buddha himself sent a confirming sign — "Rāhula" (羅睺羅) means "obscuration" or "covering," after the eclipse-demon of the same name, and marks the six years he was, in a sense, hidden. He was, by tradition, foremost among the disciples in inconspicuous practice, a boy who chose ordination over inheriting a throne that would have made him ruler of a quarter of the world.
Kumārajīva names four specific things Rāhula's answer to the young men got wrong, each corrected in turn by Vimalakīrti: he had not gauged their actual capacity before answering; he described an immeasurable merit as though it could be tallied like a finite quantity; he described something genuinely without mark or attribute using the concrete language of "benefits," as though it were a possession; and he spoke only of what going forth begins with, never once mentioning what it is actually for. Vimalakīrti's own description answers each of these directly, and closes on the chapter's most radical move: when the young men object that they cannot be ordained without parental consent, Vimalakīrti does not dispute the rule — he simply relocates "going forth" itself, from a formal monastic act requiring permission to the single, unconditional act of giving rise to the mind of awakening, available to anyone, lay or ordained, on the spot. It is a fitting note to end this cast of ten renunciant disciples on, immediately before the sūtra turns, in the next chapter, to bodhisattvas.
10. Ānanda and the Buddha's Vajra Body
佛告阿難：「汝行詣維摩詰問疾。」阿難白佛言：「世尊！我不堪任詣彼問疾。所以者何？憶念昔時，世尊身小有疾，當用牛乳，我即持鉢，詣大婆羅門家門下立。時維摩詰來謂我言：『唯，阿難！何為晨朝持鉢住此？』我言：『居士！世尊身小有疾，當用牛乳，故來至此。』維摩詰言：『止，止！阿難！莫作是語！如來身者，金剛之體，諸惡已斷，眾善普會，當有何疾？當有何惱？默往！阿難！勿謗如來，莫使異人聞此麁言；無令大威德諸天，及他方淨土諸來菩薩得聞斯語。阿難！轉輪聖王以少福故，尚得無病，豈況如來無量福會普勝者哉？行矣，阿難！勿使我等受斯恥也。外道、梵志若聞此語，當作是念：「何名為師？自疾不能救，而能救諸疾人？」可密速去，勿使人聞。當知——阿難！——諸如來身，即是法身，非思欲身。佛為世尊，過於三界；佛身無漏，諸漏已盡；佛身無為，不墮諸數。如此之身，當有何疾？當有何惱？』時我——世尊！——實懷慚愧，得無近佛而謬聽耶？即聞空中聲曰：『阿難！如居士言。但為佛出五濁惡世，現行斯法，度脫眾生。行矣，阿難！取乳勿慚。』世尊！維摩詰智慧辯才，為若此也！是故不任詣彼問疾。」
The Buddha said to Ānanda: "Go and inquire after Vimalakīrti's illness." Ānanda said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, I am not able to go and inquire after his illness. And why? I recall that once, the World-Honored One's body was slightly unwell, and needed cow's milk; I took my bowl and went to stand at the gate of a great brahmin's house. Vimalakīrti came and said to me: 'Ah, Ānanda, why are you standing here with your bowl so early in the morning?' I said: 'Householder, the World-Honored One's body is slightly unwell, and needs cow's milk — that is why I have come here.' Vimalakīrti said: 'Stop, stop, Ānanda! Do not speak this way! The Tathāgata's body is a body of vajra — every evil in it already cut off, every good in it fully gathered — what illness could it have? What affliction could it have? Go quietly, Ānanda! Do not slander the Tathāgata; do not let anyone else hear such a crude claim; do not let the devas of great majestic virtue, or the bodhisattvas who have come from pure lands elsewhere, hear these words. Ānanda, even a wheel-turning king, on the strength of only a little merit, still attains freedom from illness — how much more should the Tathāgata, whose gathering of merit is immeasurable and surpasses everything, be free of it? Go, Ānanda! Do not let people like us come to such disgrace. If some heterodox teacher or brahmin ascetic heard these words, they would think: "What kind of teacher is this, who cannot even save himself from illness, and yet claims to save others who are ill?" Go quietly and quickly, and do not let anyone hear. You should know, Ānanda: the bodies of every Tathāgata are the Dharma-body itself, not a body born of craving and desire. The Buddha, the World-Honored One, has gone beyond the three realms; the Buddha's body is free of every defilement, every defilement in it already exhausted; the Buddha's body is unconditioned, and falls into no category of conditioned things at all. A body such as this — what illness could it have? What affliction could it have?' At that time, World-Honored One, I truly felt ashamed, and wondered: could it be that, close as I am to the Buddha, I have somehow misheard him? Just then I heard a voice from the sky, saying: 'Ānanda, it is as the householder says. It is only because the Buddha has appeared in this world of the five corruptions that he manifests and practices in this way, in order to deliver beings. Go, Ānanda — take the milk, and do not be ashamed.' World-Honored One, this is the kind of wisdom and eloquence Vimalakīrti has! This is why I am not able to go and inquire after his illness."
This closing exchange folds back neatly onto the teaching that opened Part 2 of this translation: there, Vimalakīrti manifested his own illness in order to teach that the Buddha's true body is the Dharma-body, born of merit and wisdom rather than flesh; here, Ānanda's confusion over the Buddha's own passing indisposition is corrected with exactly the same teaching, stated in almost the same terms. The two illnesses mirror each other by design — one staged, one apparently ordinary — and both exist, in this sūtra's telling, to make the same point about what a buddha's body actually is.
The passage does not pretend there is no tension in what it is claiming: if the Buddha's body is truly beyond illness, why does it visibly need milk? Ānanda's own genuine embarrassment — wondering whether he has simply misheard the Buddha after decades as his closest attendant — registers that tension honestly rather than glossing over it, and the voice from the sky resolves it directly rather than dissolving the question: the Buddha's body is beyond illness as Vimalakīrti says, and the appearance of needing milk is a deliberate manifestation "for the sake of this world of the five corruptions" (五濁惡世) — the same corrupted age this site's translation of the Immeasurable Life Sūtra describes at length — undertaken specifically to reach beings who could not otherwise be reached. With Ānanda's decline, all ten of the Buddha's great disciples have now, one after another, been shown unequal to a single conversation each with the same layman; the next chapter turns from disciples to bodhisattvas, and finds the pattern continuing.