維摩經略疏垂裕記 5.103

5.103

二、「法無」下，隨文正釋，三：初、明體法生空破折法生空，二：初、標示懸解，二：初、標示。二、「問」下，懸解，二：初、懸斷生空即中疑。問中初是牒前義，「何得入中」是正問。荊溪云：此依通中偏生空問，答中並約通中利根、利中圓教以釋空義。引經證義，一切皆然。細得七重之中三真深意，方了此中。前後經文然約圓釋。眾生尚乃即是法性，況眾生空豈可非耶？故使一切趣於我人。次引《大經》六法而答。問者五陰神我總成六法，不即不離已如餘文，於中但取我空而已，故引六十二見即是答也。向多處文已料簡竟，此何復疑？如云即真入中，故於次文分上下根，下根即真、上根即中。即中從深、即真在淺，深不失淺、淺則遺深，故覆淺從深，一音通被。況依經部，理合隨機；準經現文，且從通釋。如云法無眾生，三教之法俱無眾生，用智不同使成三異，故法性實慧及以方便其言悉通。但譬之以伊，不通通別。又復須知已下諸句方便慧中悉有二意：自行、化他。又下諸句云心及一切法者，以此諸句歷心約法，誰有見之不思己行，一向專憑文字法耶？

Second, from "Phenomena have no" downward, directly explains following the text, in three parts: first, explains the emptiness of beings through intrinsic phenomena breaking the emptiness of beings through analytical phenomena, which has two parts: first, points out and generally resolves; which has two parts: first, points out; second, from "Question" downward, generally resolves, which has two parts: first, generally resolves doubts about the emptiness of beings being identical to the middle. In the question, the first part reviews the earlier meaning, and "how can one enter the middle?" is the direct question. Jingxi says: "This asks based on the biased emptiness of beings in the common [teaching]; the answer explains the meaning of emptiness by relying both on the sharp faculties within the common [teaching] and the perfect teaching within the sharp [capacities]. All citations of sūtras to verify the meaning are like this. Only when one has thoroughly grasped the profound meaning of the three truths within the seven levels can one comprehend this." Earlier and later sūtra texts are indeed explained according to the perfect [teaching]. If sentient beings are already identical to the Dharmatā, how could the emptiness of sentient beings not be so? Therefore, all converges on the self and person. Next, it answers by citing the six phenomena from the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra. To the questioner: the five aggregates and the conscious self make six phenomena in total; their being neither identical nor separate has already been addressed in other texts; among them, one merely takes the emptiness of self, and therefore citing the sixty-two views is precisely the answer. This has already been distinguished and examined in many places in the text; why doubt it again? As it says that identical to the true one enters the middle, it therefore divides higher and lower faculties in the next passage: the lower faculties are identical to the true, while the higher faculties enter the middle. Entering the middle accords with the profound; being identical to the true remains in the shallow. The profound does not lose the shallow, whereas the shallow abandons the profound; therefore, covering the shallow to follow the profound, a single voice universally covers them. Moreover, relying on the division of the sūtra, principle should accord with capacities; based on the present text of the sūtra, it is provisionally explained in accordance with the common [teaching]. Just as it says that phenomena have no sentient beings: the phenomena of the three teachings are all devoid of sentient beings, but differences in the application of wisdom make them three different [levels], so the words "Dharmatā," "real wisdom," and "expedients" all have a common application. Only when compared to the letter "i" does it not apply to the common and separate. Furthermore, one must know that in the expedient wisdom of all the lines below there are two meanings: self-cultivation and transforming others. Moreover, where the lines below say "the mind and all phenomena," because these lines trace the mind and rely on phenomena, who that sees this would not reflect on their own practice, rather than exclusively relying solely on the Dharma of written words?