維摩經略疏垂裕記 4.33

4.33

Second, briefly explaining the meaning of expedient means, in two parts: first, listing the sections; second, explaining sequentially, in two parts: first, explaining the five sections, in five parts: first, briefly explaining the name. Jingxi says: In the *Commentary on the Lotus Sūtra*, to reveal the real, it is divided into three explanations, namely dharma-use, the gate, and the secret and subtle. Now, discarding two and taking only dharma-use: the gate concerns entry, and the secret and subtle concerns opening the provisional; since the provisional is not yet opened here, the latter explanations are omitted. Not taking the gate is because bodhisattvas can enter while the two vehicles lack it; among bodhisattvas, it is temporarily treated in terms of their own capacity; and setting aside sequential entry, it is therefore temporarily not mentioned. According to principle, it should also use the single meaning of the gate, but because entry according to one's own capacity is identical with dharma-use, it temporarily uses only the single meaning of dharma-use. Furthermore, extending to secret teachings, one could also fully use those three meanings; only then is it the bias toward what knowledge arrives at. 'Dharma' in the present text temporarily points to the dharmas of the three biases. Because that *Commentary on the Lotus Sūtra* refers to all four teachings collectively as dharma, since it is not yet blended, it belongs to the expedient means of the present sūtra, unlike that text which is formulated in terms of the four teachings. Second, the identity and difference according to the teachings. Jingxi says: Next, distinguishing differences according to the four teachings refers to differences presented in the sūtras and treatises. The previous text merely listed the two gates of existence and non-existence and omitted the third and fourth; if one understands the first two, one comprehends the third and fourth, since using both is the third and negating both is the fourth; therefore the third and fourth are not listed again. Furthermore, looking from a later teaching toward a prior one, whether real or provisional, whether spoken doctrine or realized attainment, whether for other or for self—when self and other are contrasted, all are termed provisional; since they are not what is practiced and applied in the teaching itself, looking from the side of preaching, they are all provisional. Furthermore, within a teaching itself, when self and other are contrasted, all previous teachings, whether realization or exposition, are provisional because they mutually supersede: superseding the prior real constitutes the later provisional. What belongs to the teaching itself may also be termed real; in order to contrast and distinguish a pair, self and other are established. It is like the *Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra* saying 'what worldly people see' and so forth. The text has four parts: first, the Pitaka teaching. Jingxi says: From 'like the Abhidharma' up to 'real knowledge': question—since this mentions the impermanence of phenomena and principle, phenomena may be impermanent, but why is principle so? Answer: Illumination of what is absent in principle is also called impermanent; hence the *Satyasiddhi-śāstra* takes both phenomena and principle within the gate of existence to be provisional, because the principle in the gate of existence is not identical with phenomena. 'Obstacle of dharmas' refers to the dust-and-sand [defilements] within the realms. Second, the Common teaching. Jingxi says: One may also cite the *Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā*, 'If there were any dharma surpassing nirvāṇa...', to verify that real knowledge is also called an illusion. Regarding 'the Buddha and the eighth ground': what they realize is already equal, only that a slight remnant of habit-energies is retained. Third, the Distinct teaching. Regarding 'illuminating the hidden principle': that is, the principle of the mere middle being covered by afflictions, like the moon behind clouds, or gold in ore. Fourth, the Perfect teaching. Jingxi says: Regarding 'Therefore Mañjuśrī...' and so forth: this directly cites proof of the real of one's own practice. One should also universally cite the thirty-two individuals each speaking for themselves, to prove transforming others: each distinct gate is provisional, while each gate being non-dual is the real of transforming others. One may also take Mañjuśrī to prove self and other: having speech is called transforming others, while speaking of the unspeakable can be called one's own practice.