維摩經略疏垂裕記 9.104

9.104

問：若爾，過在《大經》。答曰：不然。有事有理。若從事說，若見法性始，即見無明終。佛見法性終，名見無明始。無始之始名無明始，無終之終名法性終。若從理者，應知二法俱始並終。況此二法自無二法，俱無始終。若從事理相待以說，從理故即、從事故離，始終亦爾，約非事理而論事理，於無始終而云始終。《大經》之文帶別論圓，從事相待，故作此說。次窮源中，唯約五住不云塵沙者，以塵沙惑不障於理。四住障真、無明障中，是故且從二障邊說。況無明無知但成離合，具如餘文廣簡同異。是故不可更以四住依於無知，無知非依，是故不立。若言無知依於無明，能依又失。今欲令於四住見中，故指無明全四住是，法性復指無明為心。窮源既然，修觀準說。但觀現住一念見思徹無明源、窮法性底，法性即無住，無住即無明，無明亦無住。若斷若窮雖分前後，然其住處不合不離。

Question: If so, the fault lies in the Great Sūtra. Answer: Not so. There are phenomena and there is principle. If spoken from phenomena, seeing the beginning of dharma-nature is precisely seeing the end of ignorance. The Buddha seeing the end of dharma-nature is called seeing the beginning of ignorance. The beginning of the beginningless is called the beginning of ignorance; the end of the endless is called the end of dharma-nature. If from principle, one should know that both dharmas are simultaneously beginning and end. Moreover, these two dharmas are themselves not two dharmas; both lack beginning and end. If spoken from the mutual dependence of phenomena and principle: from principle, they are identical; from phenomena, they are separate; beginning and end are also like this. Discussing phenomena and principle in terms of non-phenomena and non-principle, one speaks of beginning and end where there is neither beginning nor end. The text of the Great Sūtra carries the distinct to discuss the perfect, and speaks from phenomenal mutual dependence; hence it makes this statement. Next, in plumbing the source, it only treats the five stages and does not speak of the sands-of-the-Ganges [delusions], because the delusions of the sands-of-the-Ganges do not obstruct principle. The four stages obstruct the true, and ignorance obstructs the middle; therefore, it is spoken for the time being from the side of the two obstructions. Moreover, ignorance and unknowing merely form division and combination, as is broadly distinguished between identity and difference in other texts. Therefore, one must not further make the four stages rely on unknowing; unknowing is not a support, and hence is not established. If one says that unknowing relies on ignorance, what is capable of relying is again lost. Now, wishing to cause one to see the middle in the four stages, it points to ignorance as being entirely the four stages, and dharma-nature again points to ignorance as being mind. Plumbing the source being so, cultivating contemplation follows this statement. One merely contemplates the presently abiding single thought of seeing and thought, penetrating the source of ignorance and exhausting the depth of dharma-nature: dharma-nature is precisely non-abiding, non-abiding is precisely ignorance, and ignorance is also non-abiding. Although eradication and exhaustion are distinguished into before and after, their abiding place is neither conjoined nor separated.