[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [維摩經略疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778) › 4.45 # 維摩經略疏 4.45 維摩經略疏 4.45 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.45](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.4.45) 「所以至說法」，二、明不堪之由。由於里巷為居士說法。里巷只是小曲之路，或表曲經所斷之理非大直道。居士義如前。「為說法」者，有師言為說戒善。今恐不然。戒善是人天乘，非諦理入道。目連多說折空入道。何以得知？類呵諸聲聞，皆半滿相對；又尋下呵文，則應爾也。 > From "Why? \[Recalling formerly\]" up to "preaching the Dharma" is second, clarifying the reason for being unfit. It was due to preaching the Dharma to householders in the lanes and alleys. "Lanes and alleys" simply means small, winding roads, perhaps symbolizing that the principle severed by the winding scriptures is not the great straight path. "Householder" is as explained before. As for "preaching the Dharma", some masters say he was preaching morality and goodness. Now I fear this is not so. Morality and goodness belong to the vehicle of humans and devas, not entering the Path through the truth of principle. Maudgalyāyana mostly spoke of analyzing emptiness to enter the Path. How is this known? By analogy with the rebukes of the various śrāvakas, they are all contrasts between the half and the full; furthermore, examining the rebuking text below, it should indeed be so. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.44](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.4.44) - [Next: 4.46](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.4.46) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778~en-mt.4.45) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.4.45](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.4.45) · Pramāṇa