維摩經略疏垂裕記 5.131

5.131

二、借幻為譬。荊溪云：問前文多云幻隨三真，今那云四理如幻耶？答：過涅槃幻，類之可知。問文初但云約通教訶，前後釋義皆作一幻隨三真轉，乃成於別圓接通。對通即三，豈會經旨獨通教耶？答：通為能通，別圓是所通。有能通別圓之功，故先但約通教釋之，能所相對即具三也。若從接邊，通是所接、別圓是能。秖緣所有可接之理，則令能接之有功。況義在通並含能所，若其不以接義釋者，何以明於通中利根根生待接、接候機成。今存三釋，為順接入圓接別教也。此文前後少明接義，秖得從容兼含判之，故委料簡通上下文。況今責目連，若解若說不稱法相，正當不得二種入通、通入二種之深旨耳，當令目連依於中道觀解之意而說法也。況復說接，然須知機，目連復無觀機之智，故令說解不當於機。「若入如幻」等者，此引二十五三昧中如幻三昧，故令依圓不思議理而說法也。

Second, borrowing illusion as a metaphor. Jingxi says: "Question: The preceding text mostly says illusion conforms to the three trues; why does it now say the four principles are like an illusion? Answer: It surpasses the illusion of nirvāṇa; by categorizing it thus, it can be understood. Question: At the beginning of the text, it only says he reproaches in terms of the Shared Teaching; the explanations of meaning before and after all take a single illusion conforming to the turning of the three trues, which comes to be the separate and perfect teachings taking up the shared teaching. Facing the shared is precisely the three; how does it accord with the sūtra's meaning being solely the Shared Teaching? Answer: The shared is that which is capable of penetrating, while the separate and perfect are that which is penetrated. Because it has the function of being capable of penetrating the separate and perfect, it was initially explained solely in terms of the Shared Teaching; when that which is capable and that which is penetrated are set against each other, the three are complete. If taken from the side of taking up (jie), the shared is that which is taken up, while the separate and perfect are that which takes up. It is solely because of the principle within that which is taken up that enables that which takes up to have efficacy. Furthermore, the meaning lies in the shared containing both that which is capable and that which is penetrated; if one does not explain it through the meaning of taking up, how could one clarify in the shared teaching that sharp faculties produce [the readiness] awaiting taking up, taking up when the capacity matures? Now preserving the three explanations is to accord with being taken up into the perfect and being taken up into the separate teaching. Before and after, this text seldom clarifies the meaning of taking up; one can only freely interpret it by encompassing them both, hence thoroughly evaluating to connect the text above and below. Furthermore, now reproaching Maudgalyāyana that both his understanding and speaking do not match the characteristics of phenomena, it is precisely that he has failed to grasp the deep meaning of the two types entering the shared and the shared entering the two types; he should cause Maudgalyāyana to preach the Dharma according to the contemplation and understanding of the middle way. Moreover, regarding speaking of taking up, one must indeed know the capacities; Maudgalyāyana furthermore lacks the wisdom that observes capacities, hence causing his speech and understanding not to match the capacity. Regarding 'If one enters the like-illusion...', this quotes the Like-Illusion Samādhi from among the twenty-five samādhis, thus causing him to preach the Dharma according to the inconceivable principle of the Perfect [Teaching]."