維摩經略疏垂裕記 1.122

1.122

二、「問那」下，釋妨。荊溪云：那約有餘等者，一質與一見皆云有餘。若二同居各各自見，亦得名為一質一見，何必要須約有餘耶。次答中云三人者，當知前釋第四句中三種意生，須指通教中利鈍菩薩，但不得指利根見中。以此菩薩但斷通惑與二乘同，以其適從通中來故，是故答中且指三乘同見第一義諦。此等本異今皆成同，故且言之。若指二同居人當土自見，何往不得，但為辨異故須此明。言「無漏至相同」者，荊溪云：據未發於別圓之心論未見中，其事亦等，故於真諦同一見也。二、約實報對二土，即因陀羅網者實報土也。三、約寂光對三土，各有問答，悉如文。

Second, from "Question: Why..." onward, resolving the objection. Jingxi says: Regarding "Why with reference to With-Remainder?" and so forth: both "one substance" and "one seeing" are said of With-Remainder. If the two [forms of] Co-dwelling each saw [their own lands] separately, it could also be called "one substance and one seeing"; why must it be with reference to With-Remainder? Next, the reply mentions "three persons"; one should know that the three kinds of mind-made [bodies] in the earlier explanation of the fourth proposition must refer to sharp and dull bodhisattvas within the Common teaching, but cannot refer to the sharp faculties seeing the middle. Because these bodhisattvas only sever the common delusions along with the two vehicles, and because they have just come from within the Common [teaching], the reply tentatively refers to the three vehicles seeing the supreme truth in common. These were originally different, but now all become identical; hence it is stated provisionally. If it referred to persons of the two [forms of] Co-dwelling seeing their own respective lands, where would it not apply? It is only to distinguish differences that this explanation is necessary. Regarding "free from outflows through to the characteristic being identical," Jingxi says: Based on not having aroused the Separate or Perfect aspiration to discuss not yet seeing the middle, the matter is likewise equal; hence with regard to the true truth, they share a single seeing. Second, regarding True Reward in contrast to the two lands: that which is Indra's net is precisely the True Reward Land. Third, regarding Quiescent Light in contrast to the three lands: each has questions and answers, all as in the text.