維摩經略疏垂裕記 9.116

9.116

二、簡顯譬意，三：初、簡虛空譬，二：初、問。既以空譬法性，所喻法性既有二異，能喻虛空亦應爾耶？二、答中先總斥。「空尚不二」者，太虛無狀，尚非一法，豈得分二？「若約」下，一往順答，能喻之空亦分二別。「緣盡」等者，謂雲霧暗緣盡、虛空明相顯時，或見萬象或但見空，可以喻但不但二種真理。「破虛空之義」者，如《大經．迦葉品》十番破外人計虛空義。外計可破，可喻但空，顯佛說虛空正義；可喻不可得空，即不但空也。「復次」下，向雖分配，今復斥之。夫立喻者皆一往取類，不應求備，其猶雪山喻象，不可求其尾牙；滿月喻面，安得責其眉目。以空喻性，其事亦爾，豈得問但不但之殊耶？二、簡煙等譬，二：初問、二答。三、簡火等譬，二：初問、二答。

Second, distinguishing and revealing the intention of the metaphors, in three parts: first, distinguishing the metaphor of space, in two parts: first, a question. Since space is used as a metaphor for dharmatā, and the dharmatā that is illustrated has two differences, should the space that illustrates it also be like this? Second, in the answer, first a general refutation. Regarding "Space is not even two": great empty space has no form and is not even a single dharma; how could it be divided into two? From "If in terms of..." onward, provisionally according with the answer: the space that illustrates it is also divided into two. Regarding "when conditions end," etc.: when the dark conditions of clouds and fog end and the bright characteristics of space appear, one sees either the myriad forms or merely space; this can serve as a metaphor for the two kinds of true principle—mere and not-mere [emptiness]. Regarding "refuting the meaning of space": as in the ten refutations of the heterodox view of space in the "Kāśyapa Chapter" of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra. That the heterodox view can be refuted serves as a metaphor for mere emptiness, revealing the Buddha's correct teaching of space; this serves as a metaphor for ungraspable emptiness, which is not-mere emptiness. From "Furthermore..." onward, although matches were just assigned, they are now refuted again. Whenever establishing a metaphor, one provisionally takes an analogy and should not demand completeness, just as when using the snowy mountains to illustrate an elephant, one cannot demand its tail or tusks; or when using the full moon to illustrate a face, how can one demand its eyebrows and eyes? Using space to illustrate nature is also like this; how could one ask about the difference between mere and not-mere? Second, distinguishing the metaphor of smoke, etc., in two parts: first, a question; second, an answer. Third, distinguishing the metaphor of fire, etc., in two parts: first, a question; second, an answer.