維摩經略疏垂裕記 4.25

4.25

Question: Earlier, in explaining the heavenly vessel, the realm of eternal quiescent light was compared to the vessel and the various lands were compared to the rice. Why is quiescent light now compared to the rice? Answer: One cannot use a metaphor to illustrate true liberation. If one does employ a metaphor, both the general and the specific apply. The specific has already been explained as above; the general is as it is now. Since both are metaphors, how could the principle be obscured? The various lands and quiescent light are alike neither defiled nor pure, yet being defiled and being pure serve as the rice. If distinguished provisionally: viewing reward lands in comparison to quiescent light, the vessel's colour penetrates the rice's colour, causing the rice's colour to differ; thus, upon one colour of rice there are both vessel and rice colours, which is also called a difference in rice colour. Comparing the lower, middle, and upper [grades of] quiescent light mutually with one another in turn, the vessel has multiple colours which all penetrate the rice's colour; comparing them mutually with one another in turn is also called a difference in rice colour. If one further contrasts quiescent light with the distinctions among the various lands, separately discussing the difference in rice colour as both neither pure nor defiled: the rice and the vessel are both composed of the four subtleties; each is intrinsically neither rice nor vessel, yet they can form the rice and the vessel. Therefore, under both the general and specific metaphors, the principle is fully established.