維摩經略疏垂裕記 6.42

6.42

二、「一約」下，隨文釋義，三：初、約殺賊訶，二：初、敘意分科。二、「若順」下，隨文釋義，二：初、訶有見入於八難，二：初、釋有見惑。「言邪見者是何等見」者，荊溪云：徵起釋出。若界內邪，此則易知。外邪難識，即指善吉。故欲釋之，先須徵起次釋。若作合中，即無見攝，意明此邪仍預二諦三諦之內，二則指俗為有，三則指真為無。雖為二諦三諦邪所攝，並不見中，即屬界外之邪見也。若界內悉為二三俗之所攝。故知內外邪見永殊。今以界內既不見中，具有無明變易生死，界內能破賊義仍存。言含中者，於七重中藏通即是無中，二諦別圓接，通名為含中，別是顯中，顯中或時復指於圓。《涅槃疏》中亦以七重名為單複真俗二諦。今於此意，明二諦之中有於中道，中道共真而為真諦名為含中。若顯中者，亦是別及圓入別之二諦也。故準今意，含亦得名為顯。言「真諦合俗」者，即二乘之真合在俗中。俗亦名有，故云有見。若離為三，二乘真諦亦得名無，故云則無攝也。準上合俗既名有見，離三屬無即是無見，文略「見」字耳。以不見中並名為見，見故名邪。以五種中別圓入通者，正斥於真，豈論接真？故五種中唯圓非見，餘猶名見。「故大經」下，證二屬邪。「何者」下，釋同外道屬邪。

Second, from "first, in terms of" onward, explains the text according to its phrasing, in three [parts]: first, reproaching in terms of slaying the thief, which has two [parts]: first, narrating the intent and dividing the sections. Second, from "if in accordance with" onward, explains the text according to its phrasing, in two [parts]: first, reproaching the view of existence as entering the eight difficulties, which has two [parts]: first, explaining the delusion of the view of existence. Regarding "as for the heterodox view, what kind of view is it?": Jingxi says: raising a query and explaining it. If it were heterodoxy within the realm, it would be easy to know. Heterodoxy outside the realm is difficult to recognize, which refers directly to Subhūti. Therefore, to explain it, one must first raise the query and then explain. If taken as combining into [the conventional], it is subsumed under the view of non-existence. The intent is to clarify that this heterodoxy is still included within the two truths and the three truths: the two [truths] refer to the conventional as existence, and the three [truths] refer to the ultimate as non-existence. Although subsumed by the heterodoxies of the two truths and three truths, none of them see the middle, and thus belong to the heterodox views outside the realm. If within the realm, they are entirely subsumed by the conventional of the two and the three. Hence we know that internal and external heterodox views are permanently distinct. Now, because within the realm one does not yet see the middle and possesses ignorance and the birth-and-death of change, the meaning of being able to destroy thieves within the realm still stands. Regarding "containing the middle": among the seven levels, the Tripiṭaka and shared teachings are devoid of the middle; when the two truths of the shared teaching are connected to the distinct and perfect teachings, it is called "containing the middle." The distinct teaching is "revealing the middle"; revealing the middle sometimes also points to the perfect. The Commentary on the Nirvāṇa Sūtra also designates the seven levels as the single and complex conventional and ultimate two truths. Now, in this sense, it clarifies that within the two truths there is the middle way; when the middle way is combined with the ultimate to form the ultimate truth, it is called "containing the middle." If it reveals the middle, it also belongs to the distinct teaching and the two truths of entering the distinct from the perfect. Therefore, according to the present meaning, "containing" can also be termed "revealing." Regarding "the ultimate truth combines with the conventional": that is, the ultimate truth of the two vehicles is combined into the conventional. The conventional is also termed "existence," hence it is called "the view of existence." If separated into three, the ultimate truth of the two vehicles can also be called non-existence, hence it is said that it is subsumed under non-existence. Corresponding to the above, since combining with the conventional is called the view of existence, separating into three belongs to non-existence, which is just the view of non-existence—the text merely omits the word "view." Because not seeing the middle is entirely called a "view," being a view, it is called heterodox. Since among the five kinds, those entering the shared from the distinct and perfect directly refute the ultimate, how could they speak of connecting with the ultimate? Therefore, among the five kinds, only the perfect is not a view; the rest are still called views. From "therefore the Great Sūtra" onward, it adduces proof that the two belong to heterodoxy. From "why is this?" onward, it explains that assimilating to non-Buddhists belongs to heterodoxy.