維摩經略疏垂裕記 10.165

10.165

二、示應化異，二：初、古明應化義同。二、今明應化體別。「二釋不觀色」等者，向如訶須菩提者，〈弟子品〉云「其施汝者不名福田，供養汝者墮三惡道。」如慰喻者，即經云「須菩提取鉢勿懼」等。訶則以大聖，小故非福田。慰則小乘聖人是界內福田也。「釋三世偈」者，云「本無今有，本有今無。三世有法，無有是處。」古人多解。今家正義唯約三諦，即真而俗是本無今有，即俗而真是本有今無，即邊而中是三世有法無有是處。又即一而三、即三而一，三一即非三一，以消四句，釋然大觀。佛於大經四出宣說，故使古人名四出偈。若知三諦一心則統乎一經，何止四出貫乎一代？何止一經包乎十方？何止一化該乎三世？何止現在卷多歸一唯指自心？自心本無，諸義安在？無不離有，眾說炳然。故知四出亦且隨機證義為便耳。

Second, showing the difference between response and transformation, has two parts: First, the ancients clarifying that the meanings of response and transformation are identical. Second, the present clarifying that the essences of response and transformation are distinct. "The second explanation of not contemplating form" and so forth: previously, like reproaching Subhūti, the "Disciples Chapter" says: "Those who give to you are not named fields of merit; those who make offerings to you fall into the three evil destinies." As for consoling, the sūtra says: "Subhūti, take the bowl and do not fear," and so forth. Reproaching uses the great to consider the small a non-field of merit. Consoling means that the sages of the small vehicle are fields of merit within the realm. "The verse explaining the three times": it says, "Fundamentally non-existent, now existent; fundamentally existent, now non-existent. That there are dharmas in the three times—there is no such thing." Ancient scholars mostly explained it. The correct meaning of our school is solely in terms of the three truths: being conventional while identical to the true is "fundamentally non-existent, now existent"; being true while identical to the conventional is "fundamentally existent, now non-existent"; being middle while identical to the extremes is "that there are dharmas in the three times—there is no such thing." Furthermore, identical to one yet three, identical to three yet one, three and one being neither three nor one: using this to resolve the four lines is an open, grand contemplation. The Buddha proclaimed this in four places in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, which caused the ancients to name it the "four occurrences verse." If one knows that the three truths are a single mind, then they unify an entire sūtra; how could they stop at four occurrences running through an entire lifetime? How could they stop at one sūtra enfolding the ten directions? How could they stop at a single transformation covering the three times? How could they stop at the many scrolls of the present returning to one, pointing solely to one's own mind? If one's own mind is fundamentally non-existent, where do the various meanings reside? Non-existence is not separated from existence, and the many teachings shine resplendently. Therefore we know that the four occurrences are also merely provisional expedients that confirm the meaning according to capacities.