維摩經略疏垂裕記 10.108

10.108

二、料簡，二：初、問。二、答，二：初、明五門俱教。二、約四悉結成，二：初、約前三後一釋。「注云云」者，此四悉檀並約理說，隨機暫異，定無淺深。二、「亦以」下，約前後俱四釋。既是相成，故前後俱四。無言有說，四益何殊？要其所歸同歸于道。二、引二論證成，二：初、證成四門，二：初、引論。二、「若實」下，釋義，二：初、釋門義。二、「如是」下，示得失。「邪見火燒故」者，夫火不取則有溫身熟食之功，取執則有焦肌爛手之禍。合法可知。二、「若因」下，結示第五，二：初、結前生後。二、「此無」下，望上顯意。荊溪云：亦是別擬圓教者，上已判諸菩薩屬別教竟，故不可說屬圓教釋也。此亦一往隨文判耳。若三十二人從遠意說，所入亦是不可說也。「得圓意者」者，上來亦判三十二人一一相通即成圓義，故今此中得作此釋。「不可說門亦如是」者，別圓四門各有第五不可說故，故不可說。其門亦通遍攝一切，方屬圓門。二、「無言」下，別示無言，二：初、通示六種，二：初、約內外通明，五：初、長爪，二：初、正示，二：初、明邪計。長爪，即摩訶拘絺羅，此云大膝，舍利弗舅也。由來論勝於姊，懷舍利弗，論則不勝，知所懷者智，寄辨尚爾，何況出胎。即棄家往南天竺讀十八經，誓讀不休，無暇剪爪，時人呼為長爪梵志。學說還家，問甥所在，人云為佛弟子。即大憍慢，我甥八歲聲震五竺，彼沙門者有何道術誘我姊子。徑往佛所，思惟良久，不得一法入心。語佛言：「一切法不受。」受即安義。此言一切法我皆能破，使不得安，故言一切法不受。「毒氣」者，即三毒心中妄計也。應云皆三毒，文中作「云毒」，字誤也。二、「佛心」下，顯佛破。「佛心無三毒」者，顯佛慈心破彼邪執。「汝之」下，正出佛破。先牒彼計，反問定之。「汝之不受」者，牒彼計也。「汝見是受不」者，反問也，謂汝起不受之見。汝內心為安受此見、為不安受此見？「若見」下，出佛難意，雙破彼執也。先破受，次破不受。初意者，若汝此見安受於心，何得一切不受？以汝見心亦在一切法中故。次破不受者，應云若見不受，今云不見者，語倒也。汝見若亦不受，何得見他有受便欲破之？既執己破他，驗知汝心有受。汝受於受者，汝心受於不受之見，此見即受，故云汝受於受。「受即苦諦」者，受有三受，讚喜即樂受、毀瞋即苦受、不讚不毀起癡即捨受。樂受有壞苦，苦受有苦苦，捨受有行苦，故云受即苦諦也。「流轉生死」者，由集感苦受五道生，故云具受諸受。「云何」下，佛結責也。二、「故知」下，簡非。二犢子、三三藏、四通教、五別圓。二、約正教點示。二、「今此」下，別顯今義，二：初約文示義，二：初、別圓對辨。此以諸聖各入則成別義，故使文殊即亦成別。若約一一互通，即成圓義，今即亦圓。一往暫分此圓前別，二往明義前後該通。雖作別釋，以圓為正。二、「取文」下，徵文顯含，二：初、徵文總立。文殊既云一切法不可說等，故知一切包收四教及以外道之法悉不可說也。若爾，何謂文殊談圓不二耶？正由包收凡小方顯圓門，即是一心本具十界六凡四聖。凡對外道，聖收四教，九界即佛，咸即空中，故俱不可說，圓融之旨於斯現矣。二、「如涅」下，引經釋成，二：初、引《涅槃》正明。「今以生生句屬凡夫」者，即收長爪犢子。「生不生」，即收藏通。「世諦死時」者，即見思破也。「不生生」，即別教十行，亦收通八地。「初出胎時」者，此以塵沙惑破、道種智生，名出胎也。「故知」下，結示。世間即邪外，出世即四教，百界一心何所不攝。二、引《法華》助顯，二：初、正約圓釋。「諸餘法」者，即前三教及邪外等。此權即實，名體內權。無非佛法，故使七方便人無能測量。「言辭相寂」者，十界權實咸皆寂滅。二、「簡」下，例簡二教。二、「復次」下，結前起後。

Second, discussion, in two parts: first, question; second, answer, in two parts: first, explaining that the five gates are all teachings; second, concluding with the four siddhāntas, in two parts: first, explaining by taking the former three and the latter one. The words 'The commentary says…' mean: these four siddhāntas are all spoken in terms of principle; they vary temporarily according to capacity, but have definitely no shallowness or depth. Second, from 'Also by' onward, explaining by taking both former and latter as four. Since they complete each other, both former and latter are four. With speech or without words, how do the four benefits differ? Ultimately, what they return to returns equally to the Way. Second, citing two treatises to verify and complete [the teaching], in two parts: first, verifying the four gates, in two parts: first, citing the treatises; second, from 'If real' onward, explaining the meaning, in two parts: first, explaining the meaning of the gates; second, from 'Like this' onward, showing benefit and loss. As for 'being burned by the fire of wrong views': if one does not grasp fire, it has the function of warming the body and cooking food; if one grasps it, it has the disaster of scorching the flesh and burning the hands. The application to the Dharma can be understood. Second, from 'If because' onward, concluding by showing the fifth, in two parts: first, concluding the preceding to generate what follows; second, from 'This non-' onward, revealing the meaning in relation to the above. Jingxi says: It also refers separately to the perfect teaching, because above he already determined that the bodhisattvas belong to the separate teaching, and thus the ineffable belongs to the explanation of the perfect teaching. This is also temporarily determined following the text. If spoken from the distant intention of the thirty-two persons, what they entered was also the ineffable. As for 'one who attains the perfect meaning': above, it was also determined that each and every one of the thirty-two persons mutually interpenetrated, thereby forming the perfect meaning; thus here one may make this explanation. As for 'the ineffable gate is also like this': because the four gates of the separate and perfect teachings each have a fifth ineffable gate, it is called ineffable. When its gate also universally includes and encompasses everything, only then does it belong to the perfect gate. Second, from 'Wordless' onward, specifically showing wordlessness, in two parts: first, universally showing the six kinds, in two parts: first, universally clarifying in terms of internal and external, in five parts: first, Dīrghanakha (Long Nails), in two parts: first, directly showing, in two parts: first, clarifying the wrong attachment. Dīrghanakha is Mahākoṣṭhila, translated here as Great Knee, the maternal uncle of Śāriputra. Traditionally, he had defeated his sister in debate; but when she conceived Śāriputra, he could not defeat her in debate. He knew that the one she carried had wisdom; if relying on debate was already like this, how much more so once born! Thereupon he left home, went to South India, and read the eighteen scriptures, vowing to read without resting; having no leisure to cut his nails, the people of the time called him the Long-Nail Brahmin. Having completed his studies, he returned home and asked where his nephew was; people said he was a disciple of the Buddha. He became immensely conceited, thinking: 'At eight years old, my nephew's fame shook the five Indias. What technique does that renunciant have to entice my sister's son?' He went straight to the Buddha's dwelling; after pondering for a long time, not a single dharma entered his mind. He said to the Buddha: 'I accept no dharmas.' 'Accept' means peace [and settle]. This means: 'I can refute all dharmas so that they cannot be at peace, which is why I say I accept no dharmas.' As for 'poisonous air': this is the false attachment within the mind of the three poisons. It should say 'all are the three poisons'; the text's 'says poison' is a clerical error. Second, from 'Buddha's mind' onward, revealing the Buddha's refutation. 'The Buddha's mind has no three poisons' reveals that the Buddha's compassionate mind refutes his wrong attachment. From 'Your' onward, directly setting forth the Buddha's refutation. First, taking up his assertion and cross-examining him to settle it. 'Your non-acceptance' takes up his assertion. 'Do you accept this view or not?' is the cross-examination, meaning: 'You give rise to the view of non-acceptance. Does your inner mind accept this view or not?' From 'If the view' onward, bringing out the intention of the Buddha's challenge, refuting both sides of his attachment. First refuting acceptance, then refuting non-acceptance. The first intention: if this view of yours is accepted in your mind, how can you say you accept nothing? Because your viewing mind is also among all dharmas. Next, refuting non-acceptance: it should say 'if you view it as not accepted', but now saying 'do not view' is inverted phrasing. If your view is also not accepted, how can you, seeing others accept, wish to refute them? Since you hold to yourself and refute others, it proves that your mind has acceptance. 'You accept acceptance' means: your mind accepts the view of non-acceptance; this view is itself acceptance, hence it is said 'you accept acceptance.' 'Acceptance is the truth of suffering': there are three feelings (acceptances)—praise and joy are pleasant feeling, blame and anger are painful feeling, neither praise nor blame giving rise to delusion is neutral feeling. Pleasant feeling has the suffering of decay, painful feeling has the suffering of suffering itself, and neutral feeling has the suffering of conditioned existence; hence it is said that feeling is the truth of suffering. 'Transmigrating through birth and death': because origination induces suffering, one receives birth in the five destinies; hence it is said that one fully experiences all feelings. From 'How' onward, the Buddha concludes with a rebuke. Second, from 'Therefore know' onward, setting aside errors: second, Vātsīputrīya; third, Tripiṭaka; fourth, Common teaching; fifth, Separate and Perfect. Second, pointing out in terms of the correct teaching. Second, from 'Now this' onward, specifically revealing the present meaning, in two parts: first, showing the meaning based on the text, in two parts: first, contrasting and discerning the Separate and Perfect. Because here the noble ones each enter [one gate], this constitutes the separate meaning, and thus Mañjuśrī's also becomes separate. If viewed in terms of each mutually interpenetrating, this constitutes the perfect meaning, and now it is also perfect. At a first pass, one temporarily divides this as perfect and the former as separate; at a second pass, in clarifying the meaning, the former and latter encompass and interpenetrate. Although an explanation according to the separate is made, the perfect is taken as correct. Second, from 'Taking the text' onward, interrogating the text to reveal what it contains, in two parts: first, interrogating the text and establishing the general principle. Since Mañjuśrī says all dharmas are ineffable and so forth, we know that all things encompass the four teachings and non-Buddhist teachings as all ineffable. If so, why is it said that Mañjuśrī speaks of the perfect non-duality? Precisely because encompassing the ordinary and the Hinayana reveals the perfect gate; that is, one mind fundamentally possesses the ten realms—the six ordinary and four noble. The ordinary corresponds to non-Buddhists, the noble encompasses the four teachings, and the nine realms are themselves the Buddha, all being identical to emptiness and the middle; thus all are ineffable, and the purport of perfect harmony is revealed herein. Second, from 'Like the Nirvāṇa' onward, citing sūtras to explain and complete, in two parts: first, citing the Nirvāṇa Sūtra to clarify directly. 'Now taking the phrase "arising of arising" as belonging to ordinary beings' encompasses Dīrghanakha and the Vātsīputrīyas. 'Arising of non-arising' encompasses the Tripiṭaka and Common teachings. 'When dying to conventional truth' means the destruction of views and delusions. 'Non-arising of arising' is the ten practices of the Separate teaching, and also encompasses the eighth stage of the Common teaching. 'When first emerging from the womb': here, with the dust-and-sand delusions broken and the cognition of the paths born, it is called emerging from the womb. From 'Therefore know' onward, concluding and showing. The mundane is the wrong and non-Buddhist; the supramundane is the four teachings; what do the hundred realms in one mind not encompass? Second, citing the Lotus Sūtra to assist in revealing, in two parts: first, directly explaining in terms of the Perfect. 'All other dharmas' means the previous three teachings, wrong non-Buddhists, and so on. This expedient is identical to the real, called the expedient within the substance. None is not the Buddha-Dharma, which is why persons of the seven expedients are unable to fathom it. 'The characteristic of speech is quiescent': the provisional and real of the ten realms are all tranquil and extinguished. Second, from 'Distinguishing' onward, using an analogy to distinguish the two teachings. Second, from 'Furthermore' onward, concluding the former and raising the latter.