維摩經略疏垂裕記 1.164

1.164

二、簡字訓。「問序訓不同」者，若以端由為義，應作絲緒之緒。若以談述為義，應作言敘之敘。何得諸經初品並作次序字，書而會通餘二義耶？答意者，雖書次序之字，而經具次、由、述之三意，今古諸家共用次序題字。「依義」下，引證。佛令依義，故於次序語下而申三義亦應無爽，豈可定執字書耶？故云依義等也。又據《爾雅》訓次者應作敘，故釋詁云「舒業順敘也」，郭璞注云「皆謂次敘」。釋宮云「東西牆謂之序」，郭云「別內外也」。而佛學之家或以次敘作序，既可互訓，隨便用耳。

Second, querying the glosses of the characters. Regarding "Question: the glosses of 'preface' differ": if one takes "source and origin" as the meaning, it should be written with the character xu (緒) for silk threads. If one takes "relating and narrating" as the meaning, it should be written with the character xu (敘) for spoken narration. Why do the opening chapters of all sūtras write the character xu (序) for sequence, yet apply it across and integrate the other two meanings? The intent of the answer is: although written with the character xu (序) for sequence, the sūtra possesses the three senses of sequence, origin, and narration; past and present masters have all used the title character xu (序) for sequence. From "Relying on meaning..." below, citing proof: the Buddha instructed one to rely on meaning; therefore, expounding the three meanings under the word xu (序) for sequence should also have no error. How could one rigidly adhere to dictionaries? Hence it says 'relying on meaning,' and so forth. Furthermore, according to the Erya, what glosses "sequence" should be written as xu (敘); thus the "Explaining Old Words" section says: "To unfold tasks in orderly arrangement (xu 敘)"; Guo Pu's commentary says: "All mean sequence (cixu 次敘)." The "Explaining Dwellings" section says: "The east and west walls are called xu (序)"; Guo says: "They distinguish the inside from the outside." Yet Buddhist scholars sometimes write xu (序) for sequence (cixu 次敘). Since they can be glossed interchangeably, one may use them according to convenience.