維摩經略疏垂裕記 9.122

9.122

三、天問去意。四、身子答意。五、天女彈訶，二，初、分科。二、隨釋。四：初、正彈訶。荊溪云：非是世間思議華者，即以界內而為難思，二乘之人豈知界外更有妙欲？「又以如法心」等者，事則大小俱散、理乃遍於法界，是名如法、名大平等。二、釋出得失。「無分別心感」者，觀生死涅槃不二不異，名無分別心。由觀心得入分真，感此華也。「分別即是別見惑」者，不斷別惑，故華著身。汝自有染，何關我非，是故訶云「仁者自生分別想耳」。分別即是染著故也。三、譬。經云「譬如人畏時非人得其便」者，羅什云「如一羅剎變形為馬，有一士夫乘之不疑。中道馬問士夫：『馬為好不？』士夫拔刀示之，問言：『此刀好不？』知其心正無畏，竟不敢加害。若不如是，非人得其便也。」道生云「恐畏之時情已怯弱，故得便矣。」四、結。「亦明有別至習氣」者，界內習氣依別見思，如枝葉依樹。「如前引智論」者，即前云在聲聞經名習氣等也。「若約通教至習氣」者，此明界內習氣。「如迦葉」者，謂聞琴起舞。如身子瞋、畢陵慢等。故有說云：迦葉昔為樂人，習氣故舞。未為全失，蓋得此意也。故知天鬘訶折迦葉，應兼兩意。若作以通訶藏，則但以界內習氣以消起舞。若作以別圓訶藏通，則須以無明為習氣。無明未破，故為界外聲塵所動，非關為樂人也，以《大論》所引《大樹緊那王經》屬方等故。「結使二種」者，謂結習正使，界內界外俱有也。共斷是界內，然有聲聞但斷正使、緣覺侵習之殊。不共斷者，即無明別惑名為結使。「共者迦葉已斷」等者，此作以別圓訶小，以釋迦葉由未斷無明故起舞也。「今此經」下，散華與聞琴相類，彼是聲塵、此是觸塵。「但經無的文」者，不定言結習是共是不共也。「此方等」下，大師準今經部意，欲兼通習，故云猶帶方便等。

Third, the goddess asks the intention for removing them. Fourth, Śāriputra's reply about his intention. Fifth, the goddess's reproach, in two: first, outline of the section; second, following the text to explain, in four: first, the direct reproach. Jingxi says: As for not being conceivable flowers of the world, this treats what is within the realm as inconceivable; how could people of the two vehicles know that there are further subtle desires beyond the realm? Regarding 'Furthermore, with a mind in accord with Dharma,' and so forth: in phenomena, it is scattered over both the great and small; in principle, it pervades the dharmadhātu. This is called 'in accord with Dharma' and called 'great equality.' Second, explaining the gain and loss. Regarding 'evoked by a non-conceptual mind': contemplating birth-and-death and nirvāṇa as non-dual and not different is called a non-conceptual mind. Due to this mind of contemplation, they are able to enter partial truth, and thus evoke these flowers. Regarding 'Conceptual distinction is precisely the distinct affliction of views': because they have not severed distinct defilement, the flowers cling to their bodies. You yourself possess defilement, what does it have to do with my fault? Therefore she reproaches: 'Virtuous sir, you yourself have given rise to conceptual thoughts.' Conceptual distinction is precisely clinging with defilement. Third, the simile. The sūtra says: 'Just as when a person is afraid, non-humans find an opening.' Kumārajīva says: 'It is like a rākṣasa transforming its shape into a horse, and a gentleman mounted it without suspicion. Midway, the horse asked the gentleman: "Is the horse good or not?" The gentleman drew his sword and showed it, asking: "Is this sword good or not?" Knowing that his mind was upright and fearless, in the end it did not dare do him harm. If not for this, non-humans would have found an opening.' Daosheng says: 'When one is fearful, one's disposition is already timid and weak, so they find an opening.' Fourth, the conclusion. Regarding 'It also clarifies that there is distinct [...] residual impressions': the residual impressions within the realm rely upon distinct view and thought, like branches and leaves relying on the tree. Regarding 'As previously cited from the Treatise on Wisdom': this refers to what was said earlier, that in the śrāvaka sūtras they are called residual impressions, etc. Regarding 'If according to the common teaching [...] residual impressions': this clarifies the residual impressions within the realm. Regarding 'like Kāśyapa': this refers to hearing the lute and getting up to dance; like Śāriputra's anger, Pilindavatsa's conceit, and so forth. Therefore some say: Kāśyapa was a musician in the past, and due to residual impressions he danced. This is not entirely wrong, for it probably catches this meaning. Therefore we know that Heavenly Garland's reproach and reprimand of Kāśyapa should encompass both meanings. If one takes it as the common reproaching the Tripiṭaka, then one only uses the residual impressions within the realm to explain his getting up to dance. If one takes it as the distinct and perfect reproaching the Tripiṭaka and common, then one must take ignorance as the residual impressions. Because ignorance was not yet broken, he was moved by the dust of sound beyond the realm, not because he had been a musician; for the Mahādruma-kiṃnara-rāja Sūtra cited in the Great Treatise belongs to the Vaipulya. Regarding 'the two kinds of bond-afflictions': this refers to residual impressions of bonds and primary afflictions, which exist both within the realm and beyond the realm. What is severed in common is within the realm, but there is the difference that śrāvakas only sever the primary afflictions while pratyekabuddhas encroach upon the residual impressions. What is severed not in common is that distinct defilement of ignorance is called bond-affliction. Regarding 'What is common, Kāśyapa has already severed,' and so forth: this takes the distinct and perfect to reproach the small, explaining that Kāśyapa got up to dance because he had not yet severed ignorance. Regarding 'Now in this sūtra' downward: scattering flowers is analogous to hearing the lute; that was the dust of sound, this is the dust of touch. Regarding 'Only the sūtra lacks a definite text': it does not state definitively whether the residual impressions of bonds are common or not common. Regarding 'This Vaipulya' downward: the Great Master, basing himself on the general intent of this sūtra, wishes to encompass also the common residual impressions, and therefore says that it still carries expedient means, etc.