維摩經略疏垂裕記 8.184

8.184

三、釋三入平等假空，二：初、正釋。荊溪云：若存平等等者，兼破古人釋平等空，具如前文目連章中，以辨大小三空不同。二、料簡，二：初問。「此違瓔珞」者，彼第二從空入假觀亦名空平等觀。謂前破假用空，今破空用假，破用既均故名平等。今以今等名同為難。二、答，二：初、總答。「利根懸破」者，既懸破空病，故雖初觀，同彼第二。二、「此有」下，別答，二：初約真諦為病，二：初：標。二、「通」下，釋，二：初、明凡夫計空為病。荊溪云：此如大論至生使者，彼論中辨有緣於無為而生惑使，此引《毘曇》證第一義亦須空之。如雖平等，復言平等以為有者亦須空故。如無為無使，能緣之心緣之生使，滅諦下惑即其相也。二、「別圓」下，明斷惑滯空為病。荊溪云：別圓不爾等者，異偏真等。雖以別圓一時共說，釋義必須分別圓相。如前屬對三種三觀，既云別相以屬別教，通相一心以屬於圓。又云通相雖圓然帶方等，乃成圓中之別相耳。故此三空通屬別圓。自此已下但尋此中一段經文，若云空即空於涅槃及以中道，結釋即云從假入空而已。故知空三諦故，故在於中。終在入空，故但似別。故初雙標圓別二教。所以此經若分教釋，理具別圓；統消經文，復依通相。若爾，為定別圓？答：既云方等適機為宗，圓別二人隨聞各異，故從宗釋須辨別圓，名分義通隨機常別。眾生佛性準例可知。故上文云「下之三品從此中生」。若爾，始末俱是一音之教，何異流支？答：顯祕既殊，一音冥契。

Third, explaining the three entrances into the equal emptiness of the provisional, which has two: First, directly explaining. Jingxi says: "If one maintains equality" and so forth: this also refutes the ancient masters' explanation of equal emptiness, fully as in the previous text in the Maudgalyāyana section, in order to distinguish the differences between the great and small three emptinesses. Second, critical appraisal, which has two: First, question. "This contradicts the Yingluo": that [sūtra's] second contemplation of entering the provisional from emptiness is also called the contemplation of empty equality. This means that formerly one used emptiness to refute the provisional, and now one uses the provisional to refute emptiness; since the refuting and applying are equal, it is called equality. Now one poses an objection based on the identity of the term "equal". Second, answer, which has two: First, general answer. "Those of sharp faculties refute beforehand": since they refute the sickness of emptiness beforehand, even though this is the first contemplation, it is identical to that second. Second, from "this has" below, specific answer, which has two: First, regarding the true truth as the sickness, which has two: First, marking. Second, from "common" below, explaining, which has two: First, clarifying that ordinary persons grasping at emptiness is the sickness. Jingxi says: "This is like the Great Commentary up to 'producing defilements'": that commentary distinguishes that there are those who produce afflictive defilements with unconditioned [dharmas] as the object. Here it cites the Abhidharma to prove that the ultimate truth must also be emptied. Just as although it is equal, if one further speaks of equality taking it to be existent, it must also be emptied. Just as the unconditioned has no defilements, yet the mind capable of cognizing them produces defilements in taking them as object; the defilements under the truth of cessation are their mark. Second, from "separate and perfect" below, clarifying that severing defilements and stagnating in emptiness is the sickness. Jingxi says: "The separate and perfect are not so" and so forth: this differs from the biased truth, etc. Although the separate and perfect are stated together at one time, in explaining the meaning one must distinguish the marks of the separate and perfect. As previously correlated with the three kinds of threefold contemplation, since it is said that the separate aspect belongs to the separate teaching, and the common aspect of the one mind belongs to the perfect [teaching]. Furthermore, it is said that although the common aspect is perfect, yet it carries the Vaipulya along, thus becoming the separate aspect within the perfect. Hence these three emptinesses belong in common to the separate and the perfect. From here on, merely examining this passage of the sūtra text, if it speaks of emptiness, it is precisely emptying nirvāṇa and the middle way, and the concluding interpretation merely says "entering emptiness from the provisional" and no more. Therefore, one knows that because it empties the three truths, it is situated in the middle. But its final outcome lies in entering emptiness; hence it only resembles the separate. Therefore, at the outset it jointly marks the two teachings of perfect and separate. Thus, when this sūtra is interpreted by distinguishing the teachings, its principle possesses both separate and perfect; but in resolving the sūtra text overall, it also relies on the common aspect. If so, how can one determine separate or perfect? Answer: Since it is said that taking Vaipulya to accord with faculties is the primary purport, the two persons of the perfect and separate differ according to what they hear. Therefore, in interpreting in accord with the purport, one must distinguish separate and perfect; their names are distinct while their meaning is shared, remaining ever distinct according to faculties. Sentient beings and Buddha-nature can be understood by analogy with this. Thus the text above says: "The lower three chapters arise from within this." If so, if it is the teaching of a single voice from beginning to end, how does it differ from the [Bodhiruci] lineage? Answer: Since the manifest and the secret are distinct, the single voice covertly tallies.