維摩經略疏垂裕記 9.110

9.110

二、「今經」下，結顯經意，二：初、約經顯意。經意且從離義以明，故無明無本，故云法性非煩惱等。二、「若說」下，約義判教。「說自住即別教意」者，荊溪云：是煩惱說法性體別，則是煩惱法性自住，俱名為自。亦可云離煩惱外別有法性，法性為他。亦可法性為自，離法性外別有煩惱，煩惱為他。故二自他並非圓義，以其惑性定為能障，破障方乃定能顯理。「依他即圓」者，更互相依、更互相即，以體同故依而復即，故別圓教俱云自他，由體同異而判二教。今從各說，別自圓他。

Second, from "The present sūtra..." onward, concluding by revealing the sūtra's intention, in two parts: first, revealing the intention according to the sūtra. The sūtra's intention is explained provisionally according to the meaning of separation; therefore ignorance has no basis, and thus it says that dharmatā is not afflictions, etc. Second, from "If one speaks of..." onward, classifying the teachings according to meaning. Regarding "Speaking of abiding in oneself is the intention of the separate teaching": Jingxi says: "These afflictions speak of the substance of dharmatā as separate; thus afflictions and dharmatā abide in themselves, both being called 'self.' It may also be said that outside afflictions there is separately dharmatā, dharmatā being 'other.' It may also be said that dharmatā is 'self,' and outside dharmatā there are separately afflictions, afflictions being 'other.' Therefore the two [notions of] self and other are neither of them the meaning of the perfect [teaching], because the nature of delusion is definitively that which can obstruct, and only by destroying obstructions can one definitively reveal the principle." Regarding "relying on the other is the perfect [teaching]": they mutually rely upon and are mutually identical to each other. Because their substance is identical, they rely upon yet are identical. Thus both the separate and perfect teachings speak of self and other; the two teachings are distinguished by identity or difference of substance. Here, following their individual statements, the separate is self and the perfect is other.