維摩經略疏垂裕記 8.175

8.175

問：此通相觀，由來學者未敢定判，或謂同於漸次止觀，或謂方等部內別有一機宜此修證。況大師疏文、荊溪舊記皆不云通相是圓接通別，今何以作接義釋耶？答：大師判釋、荊溪贊述，其文甚微、其旨甚顯，不約接釋恐乖宗師。請為陳之。大師向云「信心虛通就觀除惑不無前後」，此云「通相一心的屬圓教」，除惑前後，非通別位耶？的屬圓教非被接耶？荊溪又云「行相無殊從教前後」，既云從教，豈非示當教受接位有空假等耶？況下荊溪消中觀調伏中顯云圓接，又云三空但破見思、三假但破塵沙，虛解虛通未成實益。今之中觀定空假並中，豈非約受接進破無明耶？若謂同於漸次止觀者，大師、荊溪何甞顯示？況三種止觀俱是法華妙行，此明通相唯在方等，故疏云「恐是方等中意」，故知不同。若謂別有一機，更為不可。若爾，四教收機未遍，方等之中應有五教。此最為非。

Question: As for this contemplation in its common aspect, scholars have traditionally not dared to judge it definitively, with some saying it is identical to the gradual cessation and contemplation, and others saying there is a separate capacity within the Vaipulya section suited to this cultivation and realization. Furthermore, neither the Great Master's commentary nor Jingxi's old record states that the common aspect is the Perfect connecting the Shared and Distinct. Why now explain it through the meaning of connection? Answer: The Great Master's judgments and explanations and Jingxi's appreciative expositions are very subtle in text, but their purport is exceedingly clear. If one does not explain in terms of connection, one risks running contrary to the ancestral masters. Please let me present it. The Great Master said above: "Faith and mind are virtual and open; eliminating afflictions according to contemplation is not without before and after." Here it says: "The common aspect and the single mind definitively belong to the Perfect Teaching." Are not the 'before and after' of eliminating afflictions the ranks of the Shared and Distinct? Does not "definitively belonging to the Perfect Teaching" mean being connected? Jingxi also said: "The aspect of practice has no difference; its sequence derives from the teachings." Since he says "derives from the teachings," does this not show that the ranks receiving connection in the given teachings have emptiness, conventionality, and so forth? Furthermore, below, where Jingxi interprets subduing through the middle contemplation, he clearly says "connection to the Perfect," and also says that the three emptinesses only break view and thought, while the three conventionalities only break dust and sand, and virtual understanding and virtual openness have not yet achieved true benefit. Now, the middle contemplation definitely takes emptiness and conventionality together as the middle; is this not advancing to break ignorance in terms of receiving connection? If one says it is identical to the gradual cessation and contemplation, when did the Great Master or Jingxi ever indicate this? Moreover, the three kinds of cessation and contemplation are all wondrous practices of the Lotus Sūtra, whereas here the common aspect is clarified solely within the Vaipulya; hence the commentary says, "This is likely the intent within the Vaipulya," so we know it is not identical. If one says there is a separate capacity, that is even more untenable. If that were so, the four teachings would not encompass all capacities, and there would have to be five teachings within the Vaipulya. This is most erroneous.