維摩經略疏 7.96

7.96

「夫求」下，三、總約四諦呵。所以次約四諦呵者，身子不愜，若三寶不實不應著者，觀諦見理豈無三寶？故即呵其有作四諦非究竟也。文為二：一呵、二釋。一呵云「無見」等者，此呵生滅四諦。若由此見理不進求者，但住化城不至寶所。如呵須菩提云「不壞於身而隨一相」，豈折觀苦言見理也。不斷婬怒癡亦不與俱，豈定斷集？以五逆相而得解脫，豈煩惱盡以為證滅？如化城之造作也。有師作造詣之解，恐不如前釋。不斷癡愛起於明脫，即是行於非道通達佛道，豈離非道別有正道之可修也。若執聲聞四諦為實，即不見大乘三種四諦。「所以至非求法也」，二、釋者，若執生滅有諍論者，即是界內有為戲論。若實因此見真，斷於界內愛見論者，猶是界外無為戲論。今身子雖斷有為，猶在存四諦，即是無為界緣集戲論，非求大乘三諦之法，豈見佛性入王三昧一切三昧悉入其中。

From "One who seeks" below, third, is the general rebuke with reference to the four truths. Why he next rebukes him with reference to the four truths: Śāriputra was dissatisfied, thinking that if the Three Jewels were not real and should not be clung to, could there be no Three Jewels when one contemplates the truths and sees the principle? Therefore, he directly rebukes him that his constructed four truths are not ultimate. The text has two parts: first, the rebuke; second, the explanation. The first rebuke, saying "not seeing," etc., is rebuking the four truths of arising and ceasing. If, by seeing the principle through this, one does not advance in seeking, one merely abides in the illusory city and does not reach the place of jewels. Just as he rebuked Subhūti, saying, "Without destroying the body, to conform to the single characteristic"—how could analyzing in contemplating suffering be called seeing the principle? "Not abandoning lust, anger, and delusion, nor dwelling together with them"—how could this definitely sever origin? "Attaining liberation by means of the marks of the five heinous sins"—how could the exhaustion of defilements be taken as realizing cessation? These are constructions like the illusory city. Some masters interpret this as "reaching [the goal]," but I fear that is not as good as the former explanation. Without severing delusion and craving, to give rise to clear liberation—this is precisely practicing non-paths and penetrating the Buddha path; how could there be a separate correct path that can be cultivated apart from the non-paths? If one grasps the Śrāvaka four truths as real, one then fails to see the three kinds of four truths of the Mahāyāna. From "The reason why" up to "does not seek the Dharma," second, is the explanation: if one grasps arising and ceasing and enters into debate, this is the conditioned conceptual proliferation within the triple realm. Even if one truly sees the truth through this and severs the debate of craving and views within the triple realm, it is still unconditioned conceptual proliferation beyond the realm. Now, although Śāriputra has severed the conditioned, he still preserves the four truths, which is precisely the conceptual proliferation of unconditioned conditions accumulating beyond the realm; he is not seeking the Dharma of the three truths of the Mahāyāna, so how could he see the buddha-nature and enter the King Samādhi into which all samādhis enter?