維摩經略疏垂裕記 1.121

1.121

二、列句別明，二：初、列句正解。荊溪云：此中問答總有三重四句分別。既云於不可見而得有見，即是寂光對於三土。先以有餘攝二同居，對二同居而立四句，以此二土並有實質而辨同異，故得約質以辨有無。次以實報對於下二以立四句，以實報中色無障礙對下二土質礙辨異。三以寂光對於下三以為四句，以寂光中色質永寂故以有無相對辨四。是故辨第二四句，約有色質論障不障。初四句中復更約障以辨四別。若爾，亦應更於初四句以前立四句。淨質穢見如身子等，淨質淨見如安養人，穢質淨見如大梵王，穢質穢見如五濁人，即二同居相比望也。文中三：初約有餘對同居，二：初、正明。荊溪云：問經言去總問也。先引經立宗，「此為是」下，結難也。難意者，為元秖是一種飯色見自異耶？為元有多色見有異耶？準下答文既有四句，豈但一兩句而已。「別圓菩薩用天眼見」者，荊溪云：見土不應用餘眼，故即此二人賢位眼也。此約身居此土以論。若在方便，見二同居必無異質。「一質一見」等者，荊溪云：明五人共見有餘，更無別者。五人之中雖兼別圓，且據三藏二乘通教三乘共見故爾。此之兩教三乘之人共稟近教，故於有餘所見未遠，故便且以二同居土共彼有餘而為一見。若於彼土發別圓心，便即同於別圓所見。言「三種意生」者，出四卷《楞伽經》，通名意生。今山家釋義，作意生故名為意生。故《楞伽》云「如幻三昧力憶本願故，生諸聖中。」故知經云憶，憶即作意也。彼經第四釋三別名，初〈常無常品〉云「意生三種：一、入三昧樂意成身，亦云正受，即三四五地心寂不動也。二、覺法自性意成身，即八地中普入佛剎，故以法為自性。三、種類俱生無作意成身，謂了佛證法。」成之與生並從果說，此約通教及以別接。《法華玄》中並云「在前三教」者，以通諸教釋義故也。今文既上云羅漢支佛，下云三種意生，即此三種並指通教菩薩也。故知二乘收乎兩教，菩薩止在於通，共為三乘。三藏菩薩既同人天，非今所論也。《輔行》云「《楞伽》既云八地是覺法自性，驗初文雖云五地亦兼七地，即入空位也。八地即當入假位也。種類俱生云了佛證法，即是入中屬佛種類未必自證。若接入別，七地已前入別十住，八地已去接入十行，知佛證法是入迴向。並非證道，故名意生，仍本為名。兼不接者，共結此位，故並云地。」

Second, setting forth the propositions to explain them separately, in two parts: first, setting forth the propositions for the direct explanation. Jingxi says: In this question and answer there are altogether three sets of four propositions. Since it says that in the invisible there comes to be seeing, this is Quiescent Light in contrast to the three lands. First, subsuming the two [forms of] Co-dwelling under With-Remainder, one sets up four propositions in contrast to the two [forms of] Co-dwelling. Because these two lands both have tangible substance, one distinguishes sameness and difference; thus one can distinguish presence and absence in terms of substance. Next, setting up four propositions by contrasting True Reward with the lower two lands: one distinguishes difference by contrasting the unimpeded form in True Reward with the tangible obstructions of the lower two lands. Third, taking Quiescent Light in contrast to the lower three to form four propositions: because physical substance is eternally quiescent in Quiescent Light, one distinguishes the four by contrasting presence and absence. Therefore, distinguishing the second set of four propositions discusses obstruction and non-obstruction in terms of having physical form. Within the first four propositions, one also further distinguishes four differences in terms of obstruction. If so, one should also set up four propositions prior to the first four propositions: pure substance seen as defiled, like Śāriputra and others; pure substance seen as pure, like the people of Sukhāvatī; defiled substance seen as pure, like the Great Brahmā King; defiled substance seen as defiled, like the people of the five turbidities—that is, comparing the two [forms of] Co-dwelling with each other. In the text there are three parts: first, With-Remainder in contrast to Co-dwelling, in two parts: first, the direct explanation. Jingxi says: The question "The sūtra says..." onward is the general inquiry. First, it cites the sūtra to establish the premise; from "Is this..." onward, it concludes the objection. The meaning of the objection is: is there originally only one color of rice, which appears different on its own? Or are there originally multiple colors, which are seen as different? According to the reply below, since there are four propositions, how could it be only one or two propositions? Regarding "Bodhisattvas of the Separate and Perfect seeing with the divine eye," Jingxi says: To see the land one should not use any other eye, so it is the eye of the stage of worthies of these two kinds of persons. This is discussed with reference to the body dwelling in this land. If one is in Expediency, seeing the two [forms of] Co-dwelling must be without different substance. Regarding "one substance, one seeing," and so on, Jingxi says: Explaining five persons seeing With-Remainder in common, with no others. Although the five persons include the Separate and Perfect, it is tentatively based on the two vehicles of the Tripitaka [teaching] and the three vehicles of the Common teaching seeing in common, and hence it is so. The persons of the three vehicles of these two teachings together receive the proximate teaching; therefore, what they see regarding With-Remainder is not yet profound. Thus, one tentatively takes the two Co-dwelling lands together with that With-Remainder as a single seeing. If in that land they arouse the Separate or Perfect aspiration, it then becomes identical to what is seen by the Separate and Perfect. As for "three kinds of mind-made [bodies]," this comes from the four-fascicle *Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra*, where they are collectively called "mind-made." Now our school explains its meaning: because they are produced through intention, they are called mind-made. Thus the *Laṅkāvatāra* says: "By the power of the illusion-like samādhi, recollecting their fundamental vows, they are born among the sages." Therefore we know that the sūtra says "recollecting"; recollecting is precisely intention. The fourth fascicle of that sūtra explains their three distinct names. First, the chapter on "Permanence and Impermanence" says: "Mind-made bodies are of three kinds: 1. The mind-made body entering the bliss of samādhi, also called correct reception, which is the mind being tranquil and unmoving in the third, fourth, and fifth grounds. 2. The mind-made body awakening to the self-nature of dharmas, which in the eighth ground universally enters Buddha-lands, thus taking dharmas as self-nature. 3. The unconditioned mind-made body born together with its kind, which means completely understanding the Buddha's realized Dharma." Both "made" and "born" are explained from the fruit; this refers to the Common teaching and being接 taken up into the Separate. In the *Mystic Meaning of the Lotus Sūtra*, it says throughout that "they are in the preceding three teachings" because it explains the meaning by extending it across the teachings. Now, since the text above speaks of arhats and pratyekabuddhas and below speaks of the three kinds of mind-made [bodies], these three kinds all refer to bodhisattvas of the Common teaching. Therefore, we know that the two vehicles subsume two teachings, whereas the bodhisattvas belong solely to the Common teaching, together forming the three vehicles. Since bodhisattvas of the Tripitaka [teaching] are identical to humans and gods, they are not under discussion here. The *Fuxing* says: "Since the *Laṅkāvatāra* says that the eighth ground is awakening to the self-nature of dharmas, examining the first text shows that although it says the fifth ground, it also includes the seventh ground, which is the stage of entering emptiness. The eighth ground corresponds to the stage of entering the provisional. Born together with its kind is said to completely understand the Buddha's realized Dharma, which is entering the middle and belonging to the Buddha's kind, but not necessarily personally realizing it. If taken up into the Separate: prior to the seventh ground, they enter the ten abodes of the Separate; from the eighth ground onward, they are taken up into the ten practices; knowing the Buddha's realized Dharma is entering the [ten] dedications. None of these is the path of realization; hence they are called mind-made, still named after their origin. Together with those not taken up, they collectively form these stages; hence they are all called 'grounds.'"