維摩經略疏垂裕記 9.114

9.114

二、兼簡有住無，二：初問、二答。此中開合須對圓義釋之。合義唯圓，開義唯別。然圓亦具開，非一向異，故與別殊；別但具開，終無合義。諸文明別，或云法性與無明合者，此合還開。今文云合，乃即之異名耳。「若開」下，正示別義也。法性是所覆、無明是能覆，能所兩別，故云開出。「而約無明」等者，即約所開之無明也。

Second, concurrently distinguishing having entrenchments and having none, in two parts: first, a question; second, an answer. The combining and opening here must be explained in relation to the meaning of the perfect [teaching]. The meaning of combining belongs solely to the perfect, while the meaning of opening belongs solely to the separate. Yet the perfect also possesses opening and is not exclusively different, hence it differs from the separate; the separate merely possesses opening and ultimately lacks the meaning of combining. Various texts clarifying the separate sometimes speak of dharmatā combining with ignorance; this combining returns to opening. When the present text speaks of combining, it is merely an alternative name for identity. From "If opened..." onward, directly showing the meaning of the separate. Dharmatā is what is covered, and ignorance is that which can cover; the active and passive are two different things, hence it speaks of opening out. Regarding "and in terms of ignorance," etc.: this refers precisely to the opened ignorance.