維摩經略疏垂裕記 9.63

9.63

二、簡大小，二：初、問。「如第五大」等者，法有定數，大但有四，終無第五。今觀生本無，如第五大。既唯空寂，何故向文約真中解眾生耶？荊溪云：問等者正意，欲擬三諦即空，故以諸土而問於觀。約觀非但唯空，於有亦空假中。雖無空於變易之文，義當空於二土之惑。故答中引菩薩觀空例之。二答中，初約唯空分段答，二約遍空三諦答。此即兩番通明經意。初既唯空分段，何妨更約真諦論變易眾生？次明菩薩三諦俱空。則經云第五大等，豈止喻於分段，亦喻變易本空，故得約三諦以解眾生也。初答中云「依真不無」等者，分段雖空，變易未空。次文分二：初、簡小。「尚不觀涅槃空」者，涅槃不空，故受變易。二、「今明」下，顯大，二：初、明三諦皆空。荊溪云：又云至亦空者，信三諦空。既是虛解，雖未能見若假若中，能破執假執中之病。

Second, discriminating Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna has two parts: first, the question. As for "Like the fifth great element..." and so forth, dharmas have fixed numbers; the great elements are only four, and there is never a fifth. Now contemplating sentient beings as fundamentally non-existent is like the fifth great element. Since they are purely empty and quiescent, why did the preceding text explain sentient beings in terms of the ultimate and the middle? Jingxi says: "The main intent of the question and so forth is desiring to correlate the three truths as being identical to emptiness, and therefore questions the contemplation by means of the various lands. In terms of contemplation, not only is it purely empty, but within existence it also empties the provisional and the middle. Although there is no text on emptying transformation [lands], in meaning it corresponds to emptying the delusions of the two lands. Therefore the answer cites the bodhisattva contemplating emptiness as an analogy." In the second part, the answer, first it answers in terms of purely emptying fragmented [samsāra], and second it answers in terms of universally emptying the three truths. These are two turns universally clarifying the sūtra's intent. First, since it purely empties fragmented [samsāra], what prevents discussing transformational sentient beings further in terms of the ultimate truth? Next, it clarifies that the bodhisattva empties all three truths. Then when the sūtra says "the fifth great element" and so forth, how could it only illustrate fragmented [samsāra]? It also illustrates that transformational [samsāra] is fundamentally empty; hence one can explain sentient beings in terms of the three truths. In the first answer, saying "based on the ultimate it is not non-existent" and so forth means that although fragmented [samsāra] is empty, transformational [samsāra] is not yet empty. The next text divides into two: first, setting aside the Hīnayāna. As for "They do not yet contemplate nirvāṇa as empty," because nirvāṇa is not empty, they undergo transformation. Second, from "Now clarifying..." downward, revealing the Mahāyāna, which has two parts: first, clarifying that the three truths are all empty. Jingxi says: "Also saying 'reaching also empty' means having faith that the three truths are empty. Since it is an empty understanding, although not yet able to see either the provisional or the middle, it can break the disease of clinging to the provisional and clinging to the middle."