維摩經玄疏 4.114

4.114

三、約通教明本迹者，通教得明四種本迹，既不辨中道佛性、真應二身，豈有本迹之可分別！但還約通義往釋。見偏真，具五分法身為本，神通變現為迹。若入無餘涅槃，身智俱滅，非但無迹，亦復無本。通教菩薩七地具方便道，八地道觀雙流，豈不知中道佛性之理！但約教門抑畢，故不明真、應耳。恐此多是有教無人，悉是圓教之權迹也。若將別接通，明佛性常住涅槃，真、應二身本迹四句，類前分別，則可知也。

Third, explaining origin and trace in terms of the shared teaching: the shared teaching can explain four kinds of origin and trace. Since it distinguishes neither the middle way buddha-nature nor the two bodies of true and responsive, how could there be origin and trace to distinguish? One merely explains it by turning back to the shared meaning: seeing biased truth and being endowed with the five-part dharmakāya is the origin, while supernatural transformations are the traces. If one enters nirvāṇa without remainder, both body and wisdom are extinguished; not only are there no traces, there is also no origin. Bodhisattvas of the shared teaching in the seventh ground are endowed with the path of expedients, and in the eighth ground the path and contemplation flow together—how could they not know the principle of the middle way buddha-nature? It is merely because of being restricted by the gate of the teaching that they do not clarify the true and responsive. I fear these are mostly teachings without actual persons, and are all provisional traces of the perfect teaching. If one connects the distinctive to the shared, clarifying that buddha-nature is permanently abiding in nirvāṇa and distinguishing the four propositions of origin and trace regarding the true and responsive bodies, it can be understood by analogy with the previous distinctions.