維摩經略疏垂裕記 1.66

1.66

二、約名重徵，二：初、問意者，華嚴題下無不思議號，今經題下顯有其名，何故反謂《釋論》所指不思議經非今經耶？

Second, raising the inquiry again in terms of name has two parts: first, the meaning of the question is: beneath the title of the Huayan there is no designation of "Inconceivable", whereas beneath the title of the present scripture that name is explicitly present; why on the contrary is it asserted that the Inconceivable Sūtra pointed to by the Commentary (Dazhidulun) is not the present scripture?