大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 14.35

14.35

疏「淨名但明」下，第四釋通妨難，即躡跡為難。謂若加不思議，欲異餘經，尚同《淨名》，曾何成異？故為此通。彼得業用，不得德相故。故彼經云「有解脫名不思議。菩薩住是解脫，能以須彌之高廣內芥子中」等。曾不說言真如具無盡德，佛身不分而遍塵毛之德不可盡等，故彼而為一分。故龍樹呼此經為大不可思議經，則顯彼為小不思議。不思議雖無大小，教中彰之有廣狹故。

Regarding the Commentary's passage starting from "The Jingming [sūtra] merely explains": this is the fourth [point], explaining and resolving objections—namely, following the previous assertion to raise an objection. That is, if one adds "inconceivable" wishing to differentiate it from other sūtras, it is still identical to the Jingming (Vimalakīrtinirdeśa); how could it constitute a difference? Therefore this resolution is provided: That sūtra captures functional activity, but does not capture the characteristics of virtue. Thus that sūtra states: "There is a liberation called the Inconceivable. A bodhisattva abiding in this liberation can place the height and breadth of Mount Sumeru inside a mustard seed," and so forth. It never states that tathatā is endowed with inexhaustible virtues, or that the virtues of the Buddha's body pervading every dust particle and hair without dividing are inexhaustible, and so forth; hence that sūtra is only a single portion. Thus Nāgārjuna referred to this sūtra as the Great Inconceivable Sūtra, thereby demonstrating that that one is the Minor Inconceivable. Although the inconceivable has no great or small, its revelation in the teachings has breadth and narrowness.