維摩經略疏垂裕記 6.42

6.42

Second, from "first, in terms of" onward, explains the text according to its phrasing, in three [parts]: first, reproaching in terms of slaying the thief, which has two [parts]: first, narrating the intent and dividing the sections. Second, from "if in accordance with" onward, explains the text according to its phrasing, in two [parts]: first, reproaching the view of existence as entering the eight difficulties, which has two [parts]: first, explaining the delusion of the view of existence. Regarding "as for the heterodox view, what kind of view is it?": Jingxi says: raising a query and explaining it. If it were heterodoxy within the realm, it would be easy to know. Heterodoxy outside the realm is difficult to recognize, which refers directly to Subhūti. Therefore, to explain it, one must first raise the query and then explain. If taken as combining into [the conventional], it is subsumed under the view of non-existence. The intent is to clarify that this heterodoxy is still included within the two truths and the three truths: the two [truths] refer to the conventional as existence, and the three [truths] refer to the ultimate as non-existence. Although subsumed by the heterodoxies of the two truths and three truths, none of them see the middle, and thus belong to the heterodox views outside the realm. If within the realm, they are entirely subsumed by the conventional of the two and the three. Hence we know that internal and external heterodox views are permanently distinct. Now, because within the realm one does not yet see the middle and possesses ignorance and the birth-and-death of change, the meaning of being able to destroy thieves within the realm still stands. Regarding "containing the middle": among the seven levels, the Tripiṭaka and shared teachings are devoid of the middle; when the two truths of the shared teaching are connected to the distinct and perfect teachings, it is called "containing the middle." The distinct teaching is "revealing the middle"; revealing the middle sometimes also points to the perfect. The Commentary on the Nirvāṇa Sūtra also designates the seven levels as the single and complex conventional and ultimate two truths. Now, in this sense, it clarifies that within the two truths there is the middle way; when the middle way is combined with the ultimate to form the ultimate truth, it is called "containing the middle." If it reveals the middle, it also belongs to the distinct teaching and the two truths of entering the distinct from the perfect. Therefore, according to the present meaning, "containing" can also be termed "revealing." Regarding "the ultimate truth combines with the conventional": that is, the ultimate truth of the two vehicles is combined into the conventional. The conventional is also termed "existence," hence it is called "the view of existence." If separated into three, the ultimate truth of the two vehicles can also be called non-existence, hence it is said that it is subsumed under non-existence. Corresponding to the above, since combining with the conventional is called the view of existence, separating into three belongs to non-existence, which is just the view of non-existence—the text merely omits the word "view." Because not seeing the middle is entirely called a "view," being a view, it is called heterodox. Since among the five kinds, those entering the shared from the distinct and perfect directly refute the ultimate, how could they speak of connecting with the ultimate? Therefore, among the five kinds, only the perfect is not a view; the rest are still called views. From "therefore the Great Sūtra" onward, it adduces proof that the two belong to heterodoxy. From "why is this?" onward, it explains that assimilating to non-Buddhists belongs to heterodoxy.