維摩經略疏垂裕記 3.77

3.77

三、釋。土既有四，集亦應四難。「四種緣集」者，一有為、二無為、三自體、四法界，此論師所立。今家但用二名，故此研問。荊溪云：此問意者，論師既立四種緣集，今家又立四種眾生，何不以四而對於四，有為生滅等次第對之？答中「一往」，亦暫許之。言「有妨」者，因斥論師。自體法界不殊無為，名異義同，何須別立？若於無為義分三者，容有是理。然此三集並在別圓住地已上，故不以三對三眾生。欲離無為以對三者，無為即是初地已上，自體即是第十地也，法界可對等覺也。然實不及，直名無為。無為悉是障中無明，故須總合為一無為。

Third, resolving the objection that since lands are four, the assemblies should also be four. Regarding "the four kinds of assembly of conditions": first, conditioned; second, unconditioned; third, inherent nature; fourth, dharmadhātu. These were established by the treatise masters. Our school only uses the two names; hence, this is investigated and questioned. Jingxi says: The meaning of this question is: since the treatise masters established four kinds of assembly of conditions, and our school also established four kinds of sentient beings, why not correlate four to four, matching conditioned arising-and-perishing and so forth in sequence? In the reply, "tentatively" also temporarily permits it. Regarding "there is an obstacle," it criticizes the treatise masters accordingly. Inherent nature and the dharmadhātu are no different from the unconditioned; their names differ but their meaning is identical, so why establish them separately? If one divides three meanings within the unconditioned, there may perhaps be reason for this. However, these three assemblies are all at or above the abidings and stages of the separate and perfect [teachings]; therefore, three are not matched to the three [kinds of] sentient beings. If one wishes to separate the unconditioned to match the three: the unconditioned would be from the first stage onward, inherent nature would be the tenth stage, and the dharmadhātu could correspond to equal enlightenment. Yet truly it is not as good as simply calling them "unconditioned." The unconditioned all consist of ignorance that obstructs the middle; therefore, they must be combined generally into one "unconditioned."