維摩經略疏 5.44

5.44

「假使至有見」，二、雙結難。淨禪天眼皆生滅作相，雖與根本力用有殊，並是有為一往無別，故言「與外道五通等」也。「若無作相即是無為，不應有見」者，此約無為功德結難。無為正是證數緣盡，無所緣見豈見大千？若無為有見，何異外道？既不得有見，則不應言見於大千。若還取有為見大千者，此則孱同梵王，凡聖何別？既無勝力，豈能發起梵心？那律之失正在於此。何者？三藏折空不見中道，入觀即同無為無見，出觀還同有為有見，有如是過，故被難致屈。

From "If [seeing is with characteristics]" down to "there is seeing": second, concluding the double interrogation. The divine eye of pure meditation is entirely conditioned with characteristics of arising and ceasing; although its power and function differ from the fundamental [meditation], they are both conditioned and initially non-distinct, hence the statement that it is 'equal to the five supernatural powers of non-Buddhists'. As for "if it is without characteristics of activity, it is unconditioned and should not have seeing": this concludes the interrogation in terms of unconditioned virtue. The unconditioned is precisely the realization of cessation through analytical knowledge, where there is no objective support or seeing; how could it see the trichiliocosm? If the unconditioned had seeing, how would it differ from non-Buddhists? Since it cannot have seeing, one should not say that it sees the trichiliocosm. If one then takes the conditioned to see the trichiliocosm, this would be weakly identical to the Brahmā king; what difference would there be between ordinary beings and sages? Lacking superior power, how could it inspire the Brahmā king's mind? Aniruddha's error lay precisely here. Why? The Tripiṭaka analyzes emptiness without seeing the Middle Way; entering contemplation it is identical to unconditioned non-seeing, and emerging from contemplation it is again identical to conditioned seeing. Having such an error, he was interrogated and forced to yield.