維摩經略疏垂裕記 4.32

4.32

二、「問」下，料簡。「通為諸經之體」者，此明體同義，如前記。若且以事簡，則普集豈不談宗？此經豈不明體？故知二經各論宗體，文從影略，故以普集為今經之體、今經為普集之宗，生起次第使不亂耳。亦猶以普集為今經之序，豈令普集無正、今經無序耶？

Second, under 'Question...', the analytical assessment. Regarding 'universally serving as the substance of all sūtras': this clarifies the meaning of identity of substance, as noted previously. If evaluated provisionally in terms of phenomena, does the Universal Assembly fail to discuss the central theme? Does this sūtra fail to clarify substance? Therefore we know that the two sūtras each treat central theme and substance, their texts mutually implying and eliding; hence the Universal Assembly is taken as the substance of the present sūtra, and the present sūtra as the central theme of the Universal Assembly, so that the order of origination is kept from confusion. It is also like taking the Universal Assembly as the preface to the present sūtra; would that make the Universal Assembly lack a main body, or this sūtra lack a preface?