維摩經略疏垂裕記 1.67

1.67

二、答，二：初、例同反質。「更無別稱」者，何妨《華嚴》更有異名名不思議也。二、「然細」下，引論顯非。「乃是華嚴至之事」者，晉譯《華嚴》第四十明，休舍優婆夷為善財說度眾生數，即同《釋論》所引不思議經說謳舍那等也，故知論云不思議經定是《華嚴》。「若引」下，論中凡引今經，顯云毘摩羅詰所說經也。此由世人見此經一名不思議解脫，便謂是《釋論》所引不思議經。所執既非，故此委破。

Second, the answer has two parts: first, drawing a parallel and cross-examining: "there is no other appellation" means what prevents the Huayan from having another name called "Inconceivable"? Second, from "Yet examining closely" downward, citing the treatise to expose the error: "it is an event from the Huayan..." refers to the fortieth fascicle of the Jin translation of the Huayan, where the upāsikā Xiu she explains to Sudhana the number of sentient beings liberated, which is identical to the quotation of the Inconceivable Sūtra in the Commentary explaining Oushena and so on; thus one knows that the Inconceivable Sūtra mentioned in the treatise is definitely the Huayan. From "If citing" downward: whenever the treatise cites the present scripture, it explicitly says "The Sūtra Expounded by Vimalakīrti". This was because worldly people saw that this scripture is alternatively named Inconceivable Liberation, and thereupon claimed that it was the Inconceivable Sūtra cited by the Commentary. What they held being erroneous, it is therefore refuted in detail here.