維摩經略疏垂裕記 1.206

1.206

二、通三別。「世諦死時」者，止觀以破無明為世諦死，今約破塵砂也。「而生聞持至能持」者，得道種智，遍學四教四門也。荊溪云「通教不聞聞、別教聞不聞」者，若準諸文，二句對教與今文相有迴互者。何耶？以義互通故可通用。於經本文皆不爾也，並是隨義故得互論。以大經中生等釋聞，生句與聞次第亦等，以至釋生亦復如是。故《大經》云「生不生、不生生、生生不生不生。」是故從義迴互無在。言義通者，何以通教作不聞聞，雖空而色。聞不聞者，色即是空。若作別釋，不聞聞者從空出假，聞不聞者如空種樹。雖種而空，二義俱通，守名何益？

Second, the three separate [teachings] of the shared [teaching]. "At the time of worldly truth dying": the Great Cessation and Contemplation takes destroying ignorance as the death of worldly truth; here it is in terms of destroying [delusions as numerous as] dust and sand. "Yet generating hearing and upholding... able to uphold": attaining the wisdom of the paths, thoroughly learning the four gates of the four teachings. Jingxi states regarding "the shared teaching is not hearing yet hearing; the separate teaching is hearing yet not hearing": if judged by various texts, these two phrases as matched to the teachings show an interchange with the present text. Why is this? Because their meanings mutually interpenetrate, they can be used interchangeably. In the original text of the sūtra it is not like this at all; all are discussed interchangeably according to their meanings. Since in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra origination and so forth explain hearing, the clauses on origination correspond equally to the sequence of hearing, and this also applies to explaining origination. Thus the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: "Origination of non-origination, non-origination of origination, origination of origination, non-origination of non-origination." Therefore, following the meaning, there is no fault in interchange. As for the meaning being interchangeable: why does the shared teaching make "not hearing yet hearing"? Although empty, it is form. "Hearing yet not hearing": form is emptiness. If explained separately: "not hearing yet hearing" is emerging from emptiness into provisionality; "hearing yet not hearing" is like planting a tree in emptiness. Although planted, it is empty. Since both meanings are interchangeable, what is the use of clinging to names?