維摩經略疏垂裕記 5.101

5.101

二、「若三」下，辨三空入道兩殊。初明小教入道。次「若衍」下，明衍門入道。初云「前三是方便」等者，「三」應作「二」字誤也。荊溪云：前二空是方便等者，由人法空方入真空，乃名平等。當知但指所證之空即名平等。「若衍」等者，衍通三教，先明別圓，次明通教，以通教機雜故須別明。又初是總明，但云即真入中。次是別示，乃分利鈍，鈍乃即真，利則入中。初云「即真入中」者，荊溪云：既是巧空，即真即中，不應別說。言即真者，不必皆即，但云此真通至於中，是故釋云皆通法性。「若通」下，別明通教也，亦是別示衍義。「上根智」者，文脫「利」字，應云「上根利智」。荊溪云：先出鈍根不見法性唯住偏真，故云「同得見真」。上根利智通至法性，即菩薩中利者故也。既通利鈍，名為共空。故荊溪云：若不信有共空義者，今問他云：「且如經云『法無眾生，離眾生垢』等，豈不是無眾生我人壽命等四？此之四法二乘已離，何以還將用斥於小？既斥於小，小大須分。」於今應云所離無殊、能空智別。今家意以能離三中通真與拙，所證不別，應知別圓能離永乖，故釋義者諸皆具約三教俗同真異，真體須分。今疏從勝，且從圓釋。心法法性其言尚通，下三空句一切皆爾。善得斯旨，方乃可言善消三空。又復經文所列諸句，凡諸法字及以釋中諸法性名，悉須分別令具三真。若獨圓者，心外無境，一攝一切莫不融通。今兼斥俗義，義通權實及以初心，應知所觀不出界內一切心法，以由即故義雜真殊。

Second, from "If the three" downward, distinguishes the two differences in entering the path through the three emptinesses. First, he explains entering the path in the Hīnayāna teaching. Next, from "If in the Mahāyāna" downward, he explains entering the path through the Mahāyāna gate. At first, it says "the preceding three are expedients" and so forth; "three" should be the character "two," which is an error. Jingxi says: "Regarding 'the preceding two emptinesses are expedients' and so forth: entering true emptiness only through the emptiness of persons and phenomena is called impartiality. One should know that it merely refers to the emptiness that is realized as being impartiality." Regarding "If in the Mahāyāna" and so forth: Mahāyāna applies to the three teachings; he first explains the separate and perfect [teachings], and next explains the common teaching, because the capacities in the common teaching are mixed and therefore must be explained separately. Furthermore, the first is an overall explanation, merely saying that identical to the true one enters the middle. The next is an individual demonstration, dividing sharp and dull [capacities]: the dull are identical to the true, while the sharp enter the middle. Regarding the initial statement "identical to the true, one enters the middle," Jingxi says: "Since it is skillful emptiness, it is immediately the true and immediately the middle, and should not be spoken of separately. The phrase 'identical to the true' does not mean all are identical; it only means that this truth communicates through to the middle, and therefore it is explained as all communicating to the Dharmatā." From "If in the common" downward, he specifically explains the common teaching, and this is also an individual demonstration of the meaning of the Mahāyāna. Regarding "wisdom of higher faculties," the text is missing the character "sharp" (li) and should read "sharp wisdom of higher faculties." Jingxi says: "First, he points out that those of dull faculties do not see the Dharmatā and dwell solely in biased truth, hence he says 'together they attain the seeing of the true.' Those of higher faculties and sharp wisdom communicate through to the Dharmatā, who are precisely the sharp ones among the bodhisattvas." Since it communicates to both sharp and dull, it is called shared emptiness. Therefore Jingxi says: "If one does not believe in the meaning of shared emptiness, I now ask them: 'Just as the sūtra says: "Phenomena have no sentient beings, detached from the defilement of sentient beings," and so forth, is this not the absence of the four: sentient beings, self, person, and life-span? These four phenomena have already been abandoned by the two vehicles; why would this be brought back to reproach the lesser? Since it reproaches the lesser, the lesser and greater must be distinguished.' One should now say: what is abandoned is without difference, but the wisdom capable of emptying differs." The intention of our school is that among the three that are capable of abandoning, the truth of the common [teaching] and the clumsy [analytical method] do not differ in what is realized; one should know that the capable abandonment of the separate and perfect teachings differs completely. Therefore, all commentators explain the meaning by fully relying on the three teachings: the conventional is identical while the true differs, and the essence of the true must be distinguished. The present commentary follows the superior, explaining provisionally in terms of the perfect [teaching]. The words "mind, phenomena, and Dharmatā" still have a common application, and the statements on the three emptinesses below are all like this. Only when one has skillfully grasped this purport can one be said to have skillfully resolved the three emptinesses. Furthermore, in all the phrases listed in the sūtra text, every word "phenomena" and the terms "Dharmatā" in the commentary must all be distinguished so that they are endowed with the three truths. If it were solely the perfect [teaching], there would be no objects outside the mind, and the one subsuming all would be thoroughly fused. Now it also reproaches the conventional meaning, its sense communicating to provisional and ultimate as well as the initial mind; one should know that the contemplated does not go beyond all mental phenomena within the realm [of samsāra], and because of identity, the meanings are blended while the truths differ.