[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [維摩經略疏垂裕記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1779) › 10.107 # 維摩經略疏垂裕記 10.107 維摩經略疏垂裕記 10.107 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [10.107](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1779.10.107) 二、文殊菩薩說，二：初、分科。二、「一諸」下，隨釋，二：初、諸菩薩問。二、文殊說，二：初、略釋。「故云起想即癡」等，《般舟》文也。二、「若作」下，廣釋，二：初、約門示義，二：初、約五門正釋，二：初、正釋，三：初、標。二、「菩薩」下，釋，二：初、約前為四門，二：初、正示。二、「諸菩」下，結益。然此四門秖是三諦，空門真諦，有門俗諦，兩亦雙非即中道遮照。既三諦相即，故四門互融。三諦四門一心本具，既知相即各說何妨，俱達心源咸稱不二。專用此意統而括之，方識斯經不二大旨。「隨四悉檀逗機」等者，既自行因斯開悟，是以還說己法以示他人。二、「於其」下，顯今為第五。此第五門豈離前四？四不可說，故名第五。又若約觀以明，則三諦俱照成前四門，三諦俱亡成今第五。亡照體一，廓爾無寄，淨名杜口豈離斯乎？損至無損，可以意得。三、「故此」下，結。 > Second, the exposition by the Bodhisattva Mañjuśrī. There are two parts: first, dividing the sections; second, from "First, the various" onward, explaining in sequence, which has two parts: first, the various bodhisattvas inquire; second, Mañjuśrī speaks, which has two parts: first, a brief explanation. "Therefore it is said that giving rise to conceptualization is precisely delusion," and so forth, is a passage from the Pratyutpanna \[Samādhi Sūtra\]. Second, from "If made" onward, an extensive explanation, which has two parts: first, clarifying the meaning in terms of gates, which has two parts: first, directly explaining in terms of five gates, which has two parts: first, directly explaining, which has three parts: first, identifying; second, from "Bodhisattvas" onward, explaining, which has two parts: first, taking the preceding as four gates, which has two parts: first, directly showing; second, from "The various bodhisattvas" onward, concluding the benefit. However, these four gates are simply the three truths: the emptiness gate is the true truth, the existence gate is the conventional truth, and both-affirming and both-denying are the negating and illuminating of the middle way. Since the three truths are mutually identical, the four gates are mutually interfused. The three truths and four gates are fundamentally inherent in the one mind; once mutual identity is understood, what harm is there in each speaking differently? All reach the mind's source, and all are called non-dual. Only by using this intention exclusively to unify and comprehend them can one recognize the great import of non-duality in this sūtra. Regarding "adapting to capacities according to the four siddhāntas" and so forth: since their own practice attained awakening through this, they therefore also speak their own Dharma to show to others. Second, from "In its" onward, revealing the present as the fifth. How could this fifth gate be separate from the preceding four? The four being ineffable is why it is named the fifth. Furthermore, if explained in terms of contemplation: all three truths illuminated constitutes the preceding four gates; all three truths obliterated constitutes the present fifth. Obliteration and illumination are one in essence, vast and without resting place—how could Jingming's shutting of his mouth be separate from this? Diminishing to the point of non-diminution can be grasped by the mind. Third, from "Therefore this" onward, conclusion. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 10.106](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1779.10.106) - [Next: 10.108](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1779.10.108) - [Up: 10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1779.10) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1779~en-mt.10.107) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1779.10.107](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1779.10.107) · Pramāṇa