維摩經略疏垂裕記 6.21

6.21

二、總約四諦疊釋，二：初、敘意。二、「不見」下，隨釋，四：初、約諦。初、雙非釋中先約法釋。二、約人釋。荊溪云：初約法中且消經文，以無作諦遮二邊故。「若言不見」等者，又恐善吉內心遮云，若破有作豈全無耶？故即示云無作四諦豈亦無耶。故以上文所說醻之，唯大無小。何須置惑。次「又解」下，約人釋者，但以不同凡夫二乘，大乘自有無作諦也。雖有二釋，其約法者其理稍強，法通屬人雙釋無咎。次約去取者，但以三教而斥於一。

Second, the comprehensive explanation in terms of the four truths with repeated analysis, in two parts: first, setting forth the intent; second, from "not seeing" downward, explaining in detail, which has four parts: first, in terms of the truths. In the initial explanation of mutual negation, it first explains in terms of the Dharma, and second, explains in terms of persons. Jingxi says: "In the first [part] in terms of the Dharma, it tentatively analyzes the sūtra text, because the uncreated truth excludes the two extremes." As for "If one says not seeing," etc., it is also feared that Subhūti might internally raise an objection, saying: "If the created is refuted, is there utterly nothing?" Therefore, it is shown: "Could the uncreated four truths also be non-existent?" Hence, it responds using what was stated above, [showing that] there is only the Great and no Small. What need is there to harbor doubts? Next, from "It is also explained" downward, explaining in terms of persons: it is simply because, differing from ordinary beings and the two vehicles, the Mahāyāna inherently possesses the uncreated truth. Although there are two explanations, the one in terms of the Dharma has somewhat stronger reasoning; [yet] since the Dharma comprehensively pertains to persons, explaining both is without fault. Next, in terms of rejecting and accepting: it merely uses the three teachings to reproach the one.