維摩經玄疏 3.184

3.184

答曰：諸經論非不對當，但高下不同；古今法師對當，亦多殊異。所以然者，或云見地止對初地，此如今所用。或取三地併對見地，《仁王經》明四地併對見地，此則難可定依。但通教見地，本是無間之道，不出觀證須陀洹，豈得從初地斷見，乃至三地，或云四地也！若別教明斷別惑不若二乘，如此明義，或當有之。又或言「六地斷結羅漢齊」，或云「七地名阿羅漢」，此難定執。前後兩果，經論明義既不定；其間二果以意可知。既不可定依，今用義推，作此對位。雖一往小便，終不可執也。

Answer: Various sūtras and treatises do not fail to draw correspondences, but they differ in elevation; ancient and contemporary Dharma masters also differ widely in their correspondences. Why is this so? Some say the ground of vision corresponds only to the first ground; this is what is used here. Others take three grounds together to correspond to the ground of vision; the Renwang jing explains four grounds together as corresponding to the ground of vision. These cannot be definitively relied upon. However, the ground of vision in the shared teaching is originally the unhindered path, which without leaving contemplation realizes the srotāpanna: how could severing [delusions of] view extend from the first ground up through the third ground, or as some say, the fourth ground! If the distinctive teaching explains the severing of distinct delusions as unlike the two vehicles, such an explanation of meaning might well be plausible. Furthermore, some say: 'On the sixth ground, severing fetters equals the arhat,' while others say: 'The seventh ground is named arhat.' These cannot be definitively grasped. The meaning of the earlier and later two fruits is not fixed in the sūtras and treatises; the two fruits in between can be known by inference. Since they cannot be definitively relied upon, we now deduce by principle to establish this correspondence of stages. Although provisionally convenient, it must ultimately not be clung to.