維摩經略疏垂裕記 9.124

9.124

二、天以事問，身子以理答，二：初、分科。二、隨釋，五：初、天以事問。二、身子用理答。「阿說示」，即頞鞞也。「說三諦」，如前記。三、天辨不思議解脫。肇云「身子以言久為失，故默然無言。」謂順真解，未能語默齊致、觸物無礙，故天說等解以曉其意也。「二乘至捨涅槃」者，荊溪云：言文字者，未必全指文字教法，通云世間一切名言皆名文字。小乘則指界內之法，縱指教相亦非所證，若非所證還屬生死，故於其中不得自在。四、解釋。荊溪云：所以至兩間等者，文存兩釋。初釋，先舉解脫文字。「俱無內外」者，正指文字及以解脫二俱無得。所以先破解脫者，恐人不曉執解脫相。次釋者，恐人謂在文字之外，故指文字是解脫也。言「即異思議」者，即形前釋仍通通教，故重釋中即云別也。五、結會。荊溪云：何但文字是解脫者，仍恐唯指教法文字，故指二十五有一切因果無非文字，此等文字皆解脫也。

Second, the goddess asks with phenomena, and Śāriputra answers with principle, in two: first, outline of the section; second, following the text to explain, in five: first, the goddess asks with phenomena. Second, Śāriputra answers using principle. 'Aśvajit' is precisely Assaji. 'Speaking of the three truths' is as noted previously. Third, the goddess discriminates the inconceivable liberation. Sengzhao says: 'Śāriputra regarded speaking at length as a fault, so he was quiet and without words.' This means that while according with true understanding, he was not yet able to make speech and silence equivalent and touch all things without hindrance; therefore the goddess spoke of equal liberation to enlighten him to this meaning. Regarding 'the two vehicles [...] abandoning nirvāṇa': Jingxi says: Speaking of words and letters does not necessarily refer entirely to the written verbal teachings; broadly speaking, all worldly conventional terms are called words and letters. The Hīnayāna refers to phenomena within the realm; even if it refers to doctrinal marks, they are still not what is realized; if they are not what is realized, they still belong to birth-and-death, so therein they cannot attain mastery. Fourth, explanation. Jingxi says: Regarding 'Why [...] between the two', and so forth: the text preserves two explanations. The first explanation first brings up liberation and words and letters. Regarding 'Both lack inside and outside': this directly points to both words and letters as well as liberation being unattainable. The reason for first refuting liberation is the fear that people will fail to understand and cling to the mark of liberation. The second explanation is from fear that people will think it lies outside words and letters, so it points out that words and letters are themselves liberation. The phrase 'namely, different from the conceivable' means that in contrast to the previous explanation, it still communicates with the common teaching, so in the re-explanation it immediately speaks of the distinct. Fifth, concluding harmonization. Jingxi says: Regarding 'Why are only words and letters liberation?': fearing still that one would only point to the words and letters of doctrinal teachings, it points out that none of all the causes and fruits in the twenty-five states of existence are not words and letters; all these words and letters are liberation.