維摩經略疏垂裕記 5.127

5.127

三、結破，二：初、正解。「唯大目連至豈可說乎」者，荊溪云：故知不應唯作三藏說也。言「如是」者，法相應如向來所釋，豈可唯如目連說乎。目連豈不能說三藏之中法無眾生離眾生垢等，而為淨名之所責耶？法既含三，目連尚不能說三中之幻俗，何能說於即幻之三真、即真之圓中、中理之諸法？故結示云法相如是，豈如目連以三藏說乎。

Third, concluding the refutation, in two parts: first, the correct explanation. Regarding "Only, Great Maudgalyāyana... how can it be spoken?", Jingxi says: "Thus we know one should not speak solely in terms of the Tripiṭaka [teaching]. The words 'like this' mean that the characteristic of phenomena should be as just explained above; how could it be solely as Maudgalyāyana spoke? Could Maudgalyāyana really be incapable of explaining that in the Tripiṭaka teaching phenomena are free from sentient beings and separated from the defilement of sentient beings, such that he is reproached by Jingming? Since phenomena comprise the three [teachings], if Maudgalyāyana cannot even speak of the conventional [truth] of illusion among the three, how could he speak of the three trues identical to illusion, the perfect middle identical to the true, and all phenomena of the principle of the middle? Therefore, concluding to demonstrate it, he says that the characteristic of phenomena is like this, so how could it be spoken of through the Tripiṭaka teaching like Maudgalyāyana?"