維摩經略疏垂裕記 5.125

5.125

二、明九句，二：初、牒句正釋。「若聲聞至十六行」等者，荊溪云：室謂空無我，無相謂滅。四無作即餘十，依諦各別，三不相收。若衍門，三法相收。若真若中，俱無異趣，一法性中三亦何別。「引思益」者，眾生即理性滅定，理性滅定尚具足三，故知理性不殊，無相無願故也。故一理中最可相即，尚即眾生，諸何可異？「即是復宗明義」者，復彼眾生身中滅定之三理也。理為本宗，故云復也。應用即是方便之慧，亦有三也。雖同他有，有常同理。離好醜中理慧合者，現十界好醜而無取捨，即是離也。「增損」等者，荊溪云：問增損之中亦云生死及以涅槃，與前何別，而此復云？答：好醜約果報，增損約功能。二門雖別，生死等同。名異義同，重論何爽。下去準知。「法過眼耳」等者，與前離諸識及不依六塵，并今過眼耳等，秖是法性，非根境識三也。文雖隔越，意實相通。荊溪云：然法性無眼等名，一一根中俱是法界，故云過也。若實慧者，得慧故過。若方便中，入假故過。文略不述，高下比知。

Second, explaining the nine phrases, in two parts: first, citing the phrases and properly explaining them. Regarding "from the śrāvaka to the sixteen practices" and so forth: Jingxi says: "Abode" means emptiness and non-self; "signless" means cessation. The four of "non-action" are the remaining ten; based on the truths, they are each distinct, and the three do not subsume one another. In the Mahāyāna gate, the three dharmas mutually subsume. Whether true or middle, both lack distinct destinations; within the single Dharma-nature, how could the three be different? Regarding "citing the Viśeṣacintā[-brahma-paripṛcchā Sūtra]": sentient beings are precisely the samādhi of cessation of the rational nature; the samādhi of cessation of the rational nature even fully possesses the three; hence we know that the rational nature is not different, because it is signless and wishless. Therefore, within the one principle, they are most capable of mutual identity; since it is even identical with sentient beings, how could phenomena be different? Regarding "this is returning to the source to clarify the meaning": it returns to the three principles of the samādhi of cessation within the bodies of those sentient beings. Principle is the fundamental source, hence it says "returning." Application is precisely the wisdom of expedients, which also has three. Although it conforms to the existence of others, its existence constantly accords with principle. When principle and wisdom unite in departing from good and ugly: manifesting the good and ugly of the ten realms without accepting or rejecting is precisely departing. Regarding "increase and decrease" and so forth: Jingxi says: One asks: Within increase and decrease, birth-and-death and nirvāṇa are also mentioned; how does this differ from the preceding that it is stated again here? Answer: Good and ugly are discussed in terms of karmic retribution; increase and decrease are discussed in terms of function. Although the two gates are distinct, birth-and-death and the like are the same. Names differ while the meaning is identical; how could discussing it again be problematic? What follows may be inferred accordingly. Regarding "the Dharma transcends eye and ear" and so forth: together with the preceding departure from all consciousnesses and not relying on the six sense-dusts, and now transcending eye and ear and so forth, it is merely that the Dharma-nature is not the three of sense-faculties, sense-objects, and consciousnesses. Although the passages are separated, their meaning is indeed interconnected. Jingxi says: However, the Dharma-nature lacks the names of eye and so forth, and within each sense-faculty all is the dharmadhātu; hence it is called "transcending." In terms of real wisdom, because one attains wisdom, one transcends. Within expedients, because one enters the conventional, one transcends. The text is abbreviated and does not narrate it; the higher and lower may be known by comparison.