維摩經略疏 5.44

5.44

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.