維摩經略疏垂裕記 6.11

6.11

二、正述彈訶，二：初、分科懸示，二：初、分科定教。二、「所以」下，懸敘義旨。「愜同魔外」者，愜，伏也。荊溪云：然善吉、迦葉皆因乞食不稱上田，約所訶邊二人各異、各有所歸。但迦葉從貧，其心猶下。善吉自恃空解勝他，況復以身直造其舍，狀當于忤不護人心，須以隨宜悲敬兩屈。又此二人其事雖別，於理大同。何者？若堪為敬田乃可取食，此同迦葉道滅心非，自謂真田而生謬解。其心既僻，入聚必非於食等者，同於迦葉無正食法。挫同悲田，亦是訶其唯有苦集。菩薩常於五道現身，聞同悲田情猶未愜。如與外道天魔同流，而欲自謂無上乞士，乞士須是眾生福田，一事不閑，福田何在？本不了悲敬平等理性，聞茲抑挫置鉢忙然，復同迦葉被斥自鄙。二取二捨有失義同，彼此咸招四諦之屈，故與迦葉大旨略同。餘非乞食，隨事不定。

Second, directly narrating the reproach has two [parts]: first, dividing the sections and prefacing the indication, which has two [parts]: first, dividing the sections and determining the teaching. Second, from 'therefore' downward, prefacing and narrating the doctrinal intention. As for 'content to be equal with māras and outsiders': "content" (愜) means yielding. Jingxi says: However, Subhūti and Kāśyapa both failed to match the supreme field because of begging for food. In terms of the reproached aspect, the two were distinct and each had their own emphasis. But Kāśyapa followed the poor, his mind still being humble. Subhūti relied on his understanding of emptiness as superior to others, and moreover went in person directly to his house, appearing to be defiant and not protecting people's minds; he had to be humbled in both compassion and respect according to suitability. Furthermore, although the actions of these two men were different, in principle they were largely the same. Why? If one is worthy to be a field of respect, only then may one take food; this is identical to Kāśyapa's path and cessation mind being flawed, regarding himself as a true field and generating mistaken understanding. His mind already being deviant, entering a village must have been improper; regarding food, etc., this is identical to Kāśyapa having no proper method of eating. Bringing him low to be equal with a field of compassion was also reproaching him for having only suffering and origination. Bodhisattvas constantly manifest bodies in the five destinies; hearing that he was equal to a field of compassion, his feelings were not yet content. It was like drifting with non-Buddhists and heavenly māras, while wishing to call himself a supreme bhikṣu. A bhikṣu must be a field of merit for sentient beings; unskilled in a single matter, where is the field of merit? Originally not understanding the equal principle-nature of compassion and respect, hearing this suppression, he set down his bowl in fluster, again like Kāśyapa being rebuked and belittling himself. Grasping two and abandoning two share the same flaw in meaning; both incurred the humbling by the four truths, and thus it is roughly the same in main intent as Kāśyapa. The rest were not begging for food, and varied according to the matter.