維摩經玄疏 3.184

3.184

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.