維摩經略疏垂裕記 9.79

9.79

二、「如焦」下，釋餘十四譬，二：初、正釋諸喻。「如焦穀牙」者，荊溪云：若引《法華》非專今意，但約菩薩通方述之。時在小宗未有斯見，次引大經意亦同爾。以密斥之，意令當發次三。果譬大意亦然。小乘亦無界外生死，雖於大乘會中聞之，亦未能有曉了之信。藏通菩薩尚未盡知，以其教意入無餘故。得忍菩薩此約通教入無生者。「如佛煩惱習」者，指應化佛，示有煩惱，小乘教中亦明示故。「訶調達責身子」者，訶調達，如前記。《大論》云「羅云從佛經行。佛問羅云：『何為羸瘦？』羅云以偈答佛：『若人食油則得力，若食酥者得好色，食麻滓菜無色力。大德世尊自應知。』佛問：『誰為上座？』答：『和尚舍利弗。』佛言：『舍利弗食不淨食。』時舍利弗轉聞是語，即時吐出食，誓曰：『我從今不復受請。』」今以佛有譏訶是瞋習相。荊溪云：從盲者見色去，譬事則可通於小乘。滅度受身，義猶隔小。「所以出沒不同」者，以此諸譬多在菩薩亦兼小故。「罔像欲見」者，罔像亦𣷫像，不分明貌也。「滅定至入出」者，由心馳動於內，故息出入於外。心想既滅，故息無出入也。「如身子為女」等者，即為天女所變也。「如滅度者受身」者，荊溪云：此既衍門復在菩薩，仍兼斥小，得作此說。「無因之火」者，從因緣生不可得故，故云無因。還從因生，故云之火。今注本經作「無煙火」，蓋展轉之訛，以火從因誤成「烟」字，復改字體作此「煙」耳。故肇師注云「火必因質」，故知「煙」字後人妄改。荊溪云：上來諸譬，或因衍門或依小教。「以大小相兼」者，以由方等諸機雜故。然此諸譬，經文一往皆似譬無，如無色界色、焦穀牙，乃至無因之火。以無色定無色、焦穀定無牙，乃至無因定無火。疏文取意，皆顯亦有。如引《大經》明無色界有色，及酥溉焦穀有生牙義，乃至遇撨蘇繩鑽等緣火則可生，方顯諸譬亦有亦無。細尋疏文一一皆爾，譬眾生中諦如指掌焉。

Second, from "As a scorched grain's sprout" onward, the remaining fourteen similes are explained, divided into two: first, directly explaining the similes. Regarding "As a scorched grain's sprout," Jingxi says: "If one cites the Lotus Sūtra, it is not solely the present intent, but only states it in terms of the general scope of bodhisattvas. At that time, in the Hīnayāna, this view did not yet exist; next citing the Great Sūtra [Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra] has a similar intent. It secretly reproaches them, intending to cause the subsequent three [minds] to arise. The main purport of the simile of fruits is likewise so. In the Hinayāna there is also no saṃsāra beyond the realm [of the three realms]; although they hear of it within the Mahāyāna assembly, they are still unable to have clear and lucid faith. Bodhisattvas of the Tripitaka and Common Teachings do not yet fully know it either, because the intent of their teachings is to enter the remainderless [nirvāṇa]. 'A bodhisattva who has attained forbearance' refers here to one who enters the unproduced in the Common Teaching." Regarding "As the traces of afflictions in a Buddha," this refers to the response-transformation Buddha demonstrating the presence of afflictions, as is also clearly shown in the Hīnayāna teachings. Regarding "rebuking Devadatta and reproaching Śāriputra": rebuking Devadatta is as mentioned before. The Dàzhìdù lùn states: "Rāhula followed the Buddha in walking meditation. The Buddha asked Rāhula, 'Why are you so emaciated?' Rāhula answered the Buddha in verse: 'If a person eats oil, he gains strength; if he eats ghee, he gains a fine complexion; eating hemp dregs and greens leaves one without complexion or strength. The Greatly Virtuous World-Honoured One himself should know.' The Buddha asked, 'Who is the senior monk?' He replied, 'The preceptor Śāriputra.' The Buddha said, 'Śāriputra eats impure food.' When Śāriputra heard these words, he immediately vomited out the food and made a vow, saying: 'From this day forward I shall never again accept an invitation.'" Here, the Buddha's censuring is the characteristic of the trace of anger. Jingxi says: "From a blind person seeing forms onward, the phenomenon used as a simile can apply generally to the Hīnayāna. A deceased person receiving a body is still an idea alien to the Hīnayāna." Regarding "Therefore their appearances and disappearances are not the same": because these similes mostly pertain to bodhisattvas while also encompassing the Hīnayāna. Regarding "Gazing indistinctly, wishing to see": 'indistinct' (wangxiang) also written as [the homophonous] wangxiang, is an unclear appearance. Regarding "From the cessation absorption to entering and exiting": because the mind races and stirs within, breath goes out and comes in on the outside. Since mental conceptions have ceased, breath has no exiting or entering. Regarding "As Śāriputra became a woman," etc.: that is, being transformed by the heavenly goddess. Regarding "As a deceased person receiving a body," Jingxi says: "Since this is both the Mahāyāna gate and pertains to bodhisattvas, while still encompassing a reproach of the Hīnayāna, such an explanation may be made." Regarding "fire without a cause": because being produced from causes and conditions cannot be found, it is called 'without cause'; yet it is still produced from causes, hence called 'the fire of [that]'. Now the text of the commented sūtra reads 'fire without smoke' (wuyan huo); this is probably a transmission error: because 'fire from a cause' (huo cong yin) was mistaken for the character 'yan' [smoke], which was then changed in script to this 'smoke' (yan). Hence Master Zhao's commentary says, 'Fire must depend on substance,' from which we know that the character 'smoke' was a later person's erroneous alteration. Jingxi says: "The similes above are either based on the Mahāyāna gate or depend on the Hīnayāna teaching." Regarding "Because the Great and Small are combined together": because the faculties in the Vaipulya [period] are mixed. However, all these similes at first glance in the sūtra text seem to illustrate non-existence—such as form in the formless realm, the sprout of a scorched grain, down to fire without a cause. Because the formless absorption definitely lacks form, a scorched grain definitely lacks a sprout, down to being without a cause definitely lacking fire. The commentary, grasping the intent, shows in all cases that they also exist: as citing the Great Sūtra to clarify that the formless realm has form, and that scorched grain moistened with ghee has the capacity to sprout, down to encountering conditions such as wood-friction, grass, rope, and a drill, fire can then be produced—only then showing that all these similes are both existent and non-existent. Scrutinizing the commentary closely, each one is like this; illustrating the middle truth among sentient beings is as clear as pointing to one's palm.