維摩經略疏垂裕記 4.25

4.25

問：前釋天器中以寂光譬器，諸土如飯。今那以寂光譬飯？答：不可以譬譬真解脫。若用譬者，通別並通。別已如彼，通即如今。彼此俱譬，理何晦沒。諸土寂光並非垢淨，而垢而淨以之為飯。若寄辨者，果報望寂光，器色入飯色，令飯色有異。故一飯色上有器飯二色，亦名飯色異。下中上寂光展轉復相比，器上有多色並皆入飯色，展轉互相比亦名飯色異。若更以寂光而對諸土異，雙非淨穢別論飯色異者，飯器俱四微，各各非飯器而能成飯器，故通別二譬其理皆善成。

Question: Earlier, in explaining the heavenly vessel, the realm of eternal quiescent light was compared to the vessel and the various lands were compared to the rice. Why is quiescent light now compared to the rice? Answer: One cannot use a metaphor to illustrate true liberation. If one does employ a metaphor, both the general and the specific apply. The specific has already been explained as above; the general is as it is now. Since both are metaphors, how could the principle be obscured? The various lands and quiescent light are alike neither defiled nor pure, yet being defiled and being pure serve as the rice. If distinguished provisionally: viewing reward lands in comparison to quiescent light, the vessel's colour penetrates the rice's colour, causing the rice's colour to differ; thus, upon one colour of rice there are both vessel and rice colours, which is also called a difference in rice colour. Comparing the lower, middle, and upper [grades of] quiescent light mutually with one another in turn, the vessel has multiple colours which all penetrate the rice's colour; comparing them mutually with one another in turn is also called a difference in rice colour. If one further contrasts quiescent light with the distinctions among the various lands, separately discussing the difference in rice colour as both neither pure nor defiled: the rice and the vessel are both composed of the four subtleties; each is intrinsically neither rice nor vessel, yet they can form the rice and the vessel. Therefore, under both the general and specific metaphors, the principle is fully established.