維摩經略疏垂裕記 6.24

6.24

三、約四不可說者，荊溪云：問若訶小乘秖合用大，而云四不可說為不見諦。善吉正得有作滅理亦云不見，何名為訶？非不見諦，亦指《大經》有因緣說。善吉已稟生滅之教，亦能說之，何名為訶？答：前文先作雙非釋竟，已屬無作。更去取釋，復用大小相對門訶，即明善吉非但不見無作四諦，意顯衍中三俱不見。今引《大經》四不可說及四可說，明四四諦俱是聖法一心中具，見此具理而能具說，若破若立俱說但泯。但須菩提無斯證用，則二俱失，何名聖田？

Third, in terms of the four ineffables: Jingxi says: "Question: If reproaching the Hīnayāna, one ought only to use the Mahāyāna, yet why say that the four ineffables constitute 'not seeing the truths'? When Subhūti correctly attains the principle of the cessation of the created, it is also called 'not seeing'; how can this be called a reproach? It is not that he does not see the truths; [the sūtra] also points to the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra's [statement that] there is an explanation through causes and conditions. Subhūti has already received the teaching of arising and ceasing and is also able to speak of it; how can this be called a reproach? Answer: The preceding passage first completed the explanation of mutual negation, which already pertained to the uncreated. Further, the explanation of rejecting and accepting again employed the approach of contrasting the Small with the Great to reproach [him], thereby clarifying that Subhūti not only fails to see the uncreated four truths, but the intent reveals that among the Mahāyāna [teachings] he fails to see all three. Now citing the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra's four ineffables and four effables, it clarifies that the four kinds of four truths are all noble dharmas inherent within the single mind; seeing this inherent principle, one is able to explain them completely: whether refuting or establishing, all are spoken of yet eliminated. But since Subhūti lacks this realization and function, both are lost to him; how could he be called a noble field [of merit]?"