維摩經略疏垂裕記 2.51

2.51

二、約義答釋，二：初、明諸德咸歎上。「結云」下，等覺隣果方名具足。二、「若通」下，明無等。「亦通」下，前以定義為難，今以互通釋之。文分二：初、明下，亦名近。「相待」者，荊溪云：是約通義。即以住前待於二住以之為遠，待於初住以之為近。初住待於二住為近，若望三住名之為遠。乃至十地比說可知，皆以妙覺為無等等。此則初住分果亦得名近，豈唯等覺。「法華」下，明近義尚通觀行外凡，何必聖位。「行處近處」者，內懷至理歷緣耐事目之為行，體達外緣棲息真境目之為近，蓋事理互現俱約外凡。

Second, answering and explaining in terms of meaning, in two parts: first, clarifying that all virtues praise the upper. From "Concluding, it states" onwards: only when equal awakening is adjacent to the fruit [of buddhahood] is it called "fully equipped". Second, from "If commonly" onwards, clarifying the unequalled. From "Also commonly" onwards: previously the objection was raised using a fixed meaning; now it is explained through mutual commonality. The text divides into two: first, clarifying that the lower is also called 'near.' "Mutual relation": Jingxi says: this is in terms of the common meaning. That is, taking before the [ten] abodes in relation to the second abode, it is considered far; in relation to the first abode, it is considered near. The first abode in relation to the second abode is near, but looking toward the third abode it is called far. And so on up to the ten grounds, by analogous explanation it can be known: all take wonderful awakening as the unequalled. Thus, the partial fruit of the first abode may also be called 'near'—how could it be only equal awakening? From "Lotus" onwards, clarifying that the meaning of 'near' still extends to the external ordinary beings of contemplative practice, so why must it be restricted to noble stages? "The sphere of practice and sphere of proximity": internally harbouring the ultimate principle and passing through conditions while enduring affairs is termed 'practice'; comprehending external conditions and resting in the true realm is termed 'proximity'—because phenomena and principle mutually manifest, both are in terms of external ordinary beings.