維摩經略疏 4.99

4.99

「不見至聖人」，二、總疊釋。前問無作四諦，以善吉不曉，故重為疊釋。「不見四諦非不見諦」者，今以三義通釋：一雙非解、二去取解、三約四不可說。解雙非者，不見即非有，非不見即非無。所以作此釋者，善吉自謂見有作四諦得果，上已一一示其無作，奪其有作，即無有作諦理之可見，故言不見四諦。若言不見有作即無四諦可見者，上說無作為何謂也？故言非不見諦。又解不見四諦，不同二乘；非不見諦，不同凡夫。二、約去取解者，四教四諦去一取三，去一者不見即是，不見生滅四諦；取三者非不見諦，非不見三教四諦。此如《中論》明外人過，論主若破一切法者，即無四諦四沙門果，是大可畏。論主反質云「若如汝所計有，即破四諦四沙門果。我雖破一切法，四諦四沙門果其義宛然。」與此相似破者，即如今破生滅四諦有者，有今衍門三種，玄文分別，今不重明。三、約四不可說者，《大經》明四不可說，即四四諦理。有因緣說者，四悉赴之說於四也。不見四諦者，四四諦理皆不可說。不可見故，故言不見四諦。雖不可說而四教說，雖不可見而五眼見，故言非不見諦，即是不見相而見、不可說而說。不能如是，即非聖人、真所敬田，何得取食？非得果者，有師云：此恐脫落，類應有對。今明不爾。淨名既釋非見諦，即無善吉及二乘人見諦得果。若爾，非不見諦應有大乘菩薩得果。今言菩薩因中不證，故言非得果，但二乘人謂見四諦得二涅槃之果。今彈意者，只證偏真名為得果。已破化城，果即非果，故言非得果。若通菩薩雖見無生，因中未證，故非得果。別教因中雖見無量，若入無作，十地未滿豈得證果？圓教菩薩未至妙覺，豈於初心取無上果？下文云「雖復示現成道轉法輪，而不捨菩薩行」即非得果。善吉尚未見衍門三種四諦，非真聖人，何得證無學果？此非敬田，豈得取食？

[Regarding the lines from "Not seeing..." to "... sage"]—Second, the general reiterated explanation. Earlier, [Vimalakīrti] questioned him on the uncreated four truths, and because Subhūti did not understand, he now reiterates and explains them again. Regarding "Not seeing the four truths, yet not failing to see the truths," here three meanings are used to explain it comprehensively: first, an interpretation through double negation; second, an interpretation through rejecting and accepting; third, with reference to the four inexpressibles. Explaining through double negation: "not seeing" means not existent; "not failing to see" means not non-existent. The reason this explanation is made is that Subhūti himself claimed to have attained the fruit by seeing the created four truths. Above, each has been shown to him as uncreated, taking away his created [view], meaning there is no principle of created truths to be seen; hence it says "not seeing the four truths." If one says that not seeing the created means there are no four truths to be seen at all, what was the uncreated spoken of above referring to? Hence it says "not failing to see the truths." Alternatively explained: "not seeing the four truths" makes him unlike the two vehicles; "not failing to see the truths" makes him unlike ordinary persons. Second, regarding the interpretation through rejecting and accepting: among the four teachings' four truths, one is rejected and three are accepted. Rejecting one: "not seeing" means precisely not seeing the four truths of arising and perishing. Accepting three: "not failing to see the truths" means not failing to see the four truths of the other three teachings. This is like the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* pointing out the opponent's fault: if the treatise master refutes all dharmas, then there are no four truths and no four śramaṇa fruits, which is a great dread. The treatise master retorted: "If it were as you posit—as existent—that would destroy the four truths and the four śramaṇa fruits. Although I refute all dharmas, the meaning of the four truths and the four śramaṇa fruits remains fully intact." This is similar: what is refuted here is the existence of the four truths of arising and perishing; what exists here are the three kinds of the Mahāyāna gate, which are distinguished in the profound commentary and will not be explained again here. Third, regarding the four inexpressibles: the *Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra* explains the four inexpressibles, which are the principles of the fourfold four truths. When there are causes and conditions to speak, the four siddhāntas respond and speak of the four. "Not seeing the four truths": the principles of the fourfold four truths are all inexpressible. Because they cannot be seen, it says "not seeing the four truths." Although they are inexpressible, the four teachings speak of them; although they cannot be seen, the five eyes see them. Hence it says "not failing to see the truths"—which means seeing without characteristics of seeing, speaking what is inexpressible. If one cannot be like this, one is not a sage, not a true field of respect; how could one take food? Regarding "not attaining the fruit": one master says that this is likely a textual corruption, and by analogy there ought to be an antithetical phrase. Here it is clarified that this is not so. Since Vimalakīrti already explained that he has not seen the truths, there is no seeing of the truths and attaining of the fruit by Subhūti and the persons of the two vehicles. If so, then "not failing to see the truths" should imply that the Mahāyāna bodhisattva attains the fruit. Now it is said that the bodhisattva in the causal stage does not realize [it]; hence it says "not attaining the fruit." It is only the persons of the two vehicles who claim that by seeing the four truths they attain the fruit of the two nirvāṇas. The intention of this rebuke is that only realizing biased emptiness is called "attaining the fruit." Since the conjured city has already been broken down, the fruit is not a [true] fruit; hence it says "not attaining the fruit." As for the Common [Teaching] bodhisattva, although he sees non-arising, he has not realized it in the causal stage; hence he does not attain the fruit. In the Distinct [Teaching], although in the causal stage he sees the immeasurable, if entering the uncreated, how could he realize the fruit before completing the ten grounds? How could a bodhisattva of the Perfect Teaching claim the unsurpassed fruit at the initial stage of mind, before reaching subtle awakening? As the text below says: "Although manifesting the attainment of enlightenment and turning the wheel of Dharma, yet not abandoning the bodhisattva practices"; this is "not attaining the fruit." Subhūti has not yet even seen the three kinds of four truths of the Mahāyāna gate, and is not a true sage; how could he realize the fruit of the stage beyond learning? Being no field of respect, how could he take food?