維摩經略疏垂裕記 3.71

3.71

二、「就半」下，正釋經文，三：初、佛國半品明大聖對機命宗說佛國因果，二：初、分科。二、隨釋，二：初、寶積請說，二：初、同類堪聞。「先已發心」者，荊溪云：問此之五百何處發心？疏既不云，此難定判。或是此生此會已前，或普集見聞勝報人法，或復適來覩佛神變，或當聞向寶積述歎，或可具經上來諸處，或再或三，但所見聞悉屬方等含於四教。發豈不然？但機宜聞淨土行教，是故復須更請問耳。何者？發心之中上求唯一，下化猶通不出權實，歷教詮理、取土攝生，是故更須問淨土教。是故寶積述發為請，令得聞於淨土心因果。此云「至道心」者，梵云質多，此翻心也，經中已翻。此言心者，相帶來耳。「但發心至分真」者，荊溪云：問既通列菩提，六即之中不列理即及究竟者其理可然，何以不云觀行即耶？答：今此發心，對佛述行，觀行功薄故不足論。況觀名通相似等，別教相似分證非無觀行，從勝立名方稱所述。若欲通收，理何不可？秖恐長者位已過之。「言相」下，更從教簡。於此三中但云相似者，相似居中，名字無位，分真正當無生之位，故須正約相似位判。「皆約內凡」者，通性、地、別三十心、圓十信。所以約三教者，諸長者子義通衍故。「問」下，荊溪云：問意者，長者但云發菩提心，今何依據而云相似耶？「答下唯明通位」者，以人雜小乘，故須簡示。別圓二教約忍論發，義準可知。荊溪云：答中意者，亦簡無生及觀行位故，故知爾前發義不成。前已論竟，今重問者，欲簡異耳。如通教中相似初心尚未能發，故知名字雖有發義，去無生遠兼復通漫，此亦約於次第者耳。

Second, from "Beginning with the half-[chapter]" onward, correctly commenting on the sūtra text, in three [parts]: First, the half-chapter on the "Buddha-land" clarifies that the Great Sage, in accordance with the capacities [of beings], established the essential doctrine and taught the cause and fruition of the Buddha-land, in two [parts]: First, section division. Second, commenting according to the text, in two [parts]: First, Ratnakūṭa requests the teaching, in two [parts]: First, beings of the same kind who are capable of hearing it. Regarding "having already aroused the aspiration [for awakening]," Jingxi says: One asks, where did these five hundred arouse the aspiration? Since the commentary does not say, it is difficult to determine definitively. Perhaps it was in this life, prior to this assembly; or having universally gathered, seen, and heard the superior rewards of person and Dharma; or just now having witnessed the Buddha's spiritual transformations; or upon hearing Ratnakūṭa's recent eulogy and praise; or perhaps they went through all the aforementioned places, twice or thrice. Yet what was seen and heard all belonged to the Vaipulya [period], which encompasses the four teachings. How could the arousing [of aspiration] not be so? But their capacities were suited to hear the teaching on the practice of the pure land; therefore, it was necessary to question further. Why? Within the aspiration, seeking above is singular, but transforming those below still extends across expedient and true; going through the teachings to explain the principle, taking lands and gathering sentient beings, hence there was further need to ask about the pure land teaching. Therefore, Ratnakūṭa recounted their aspiration as a request, enabling them to hear the mind-cause and fruition of the pure land. Here, "the mind that reaches the Way" means citta in Sanskrit, which is translated here as "mind"; it was already translated in the sūtra. Mentioning "mind" here is just brought along by association. Regarding "from only arousing the mind up to partial reality," Jingxi says: One asks, since bodhi is listed generally, among the six identities, not listing the identity in principle and the ultimate identity is reasonable in principle, but why is the identity in contemplative practice not mentioned? The answer is: in the present case, this aspiration is recounting practice before the Buddha; the merit of contemplative practice is slight, so it is not worth discussing. Moreover, the term "contemplation" extends to resemblance and so forth; in the separate teaching, resemblance and partial realization are not without contemplative practice; establishing the name according to the superior aspect only then matches what was recounted. If one wishes to subsume them generally, why would it not be possible in principle? It is only feared that the elders' stage had already surpassed it. From "the word 'resemblance'" onward, it is further distinguished according to the teachings. Among these three, only "resemblance" is mentioned because resemblance is situated in the middle, nominal [identity] has no stage, and partial reality corresponds precisely to the stage of non-arising; hence, it must be determined strictly in terms of the stage of resemblance. Regarding "all are based on internal ordinary beings": the stage of nature of the common [teaching], the thirty minds of the separate [teaching], and the ten faiths of the perfect [teaching]. The reason for relying on the three teachings is that the sons of the elders generally pertained to the Mahāyāna. From "Question" onward, Jingxi says: The meaning of the question is: the elders merely spoke of arousing the aspiration for bodhi; upon what basis is it now said to be resemblance? Regarding "The answer below clarifies only the stage of the common [teaching]," because the assembly was mixed with the Hīnayāna, it had to be distinguished and indicated. In the separate and perfect teachings, arousing is discussed in terms of forbearance; this can be known by inference. Jingxi says: The intent of the answer also distinguishes [this stage] from non-arising and the stage of contemplative practice; thus, we know that before that, the meaning of arousing is not established. Having already discussed it previously, the reason for questioning again now is to distinguish it. For example, in the initial mind of resemblance in the common teaching, one is not yet able to arouse it; thus, we know that although nominal [identity] has the meaning of arousing, it is far from non-arising and also too broad and imprecise; this is also said according to the gradual sequence.