維摩經略疏 4.105

4.105

「若須菩提」下，二問愜同邪法不。所以更此問者，當是情猶未愜。我雖不見真佛，聞無作正法，而是羅漢，三義具足，豈同六師是其弟子悲田取食？大士知意，因重問之。汝謂是羅漢三義具足，不同六師及弟子者，何以猶具見思鄙惡之法？若有此法者，即不具三義，豈是羅漢？而不愜同悲田取食。文為三：一約殺賊呵、二約應供呵、三約不生呵。一、約殺賊呵者，若謂是羅漢，理應殺賊，何得具有見思之惑？文為二：一呵有見惑而入八難、二呵有思惟離清淨法。具此二惑，何名殺賊。

From "If Subhūti..." onward: second, inquiring whether he complies with being identical to heterodox dharmas. The reason he makes this further inquiry is that [Subhūti's] sentiments must not yet have been compliant: 'Although I have not seen the true Buddha or heard the effortless, correct Dharma, I am an arhat, fully endowed with the three meanings; how could I be the same as the six masters, be their disciple, and take food as a field of compassion?' The Great Being, knowing his thought, accordingly questioned him again: 'You claim to be an arhat fully endowed with the three meanings, unlike the six masters and their disciples; why then are you still endowed with the vile, evil dharmas of view and thought [afflictions]? If you have these dharmas, then you are not endowed with the three meanings; how could you be an arhat? And yet you do not comply with being identical to the field of compassion and take the food.' The text has three parts: first, rebuking him in reference to slaying the thieves; second, rebuking him in reference to being worthy of offerings; third, rebuking him in reference to non-arising. First, regarding rebuking him in reference to slaying the thieves: if he claims to be an arhat, he ought in principle to have slain the thieves; how can he fully possess the delusions of view and thought? The text has two parts: first, rebuking him for having the delusion of views and entering the eight difficulties; second, rebuking him for having thought [afflictions] and being separated from pure dharmas. Fully possessing these two delusions, how can he be called one who has slain the thieves?