維摩經略疏垂裕記 5.129

5.129

二、當如法解，二：初、分科。二、隨釋，二：初、彈不解，二：初、不解能說無。荊溪云：夫說者等者，然準次第，應先訶解、後訶於說。今先訶說、後訶解者，正訶目連說法相故也。說不如法，良為無解，故訶於說、後方訶解。如是解者，方可如解而為他說。故前結云解應如是，豈可輒為居士說耶。「四不可說」者，當知法性尚不可作圓教說之，況復三教寧當可說？「引法華」者，以證從極，三教名餘。通別尚迷，況復三藏？

Second, [showing that] one ought to understand according to the Dharma, in two parts: first, division into headings; second, sequential commentary, in two parts: first, reproaching the lack of understanding, in two parts: first, not understanding that the capable-of-speaking is non-existent. Jingxi says: "Regarding 'Those who speak...', according to the sequence, one should first reproach the understanding and later reproach the speaking. Now, first reproaching the speaking and later reproaching the understanding is precisely because he reproaches Maudgalyāyana's speaking of the characteristics of phenomena. Speaking not in accord with the Dharma is truly because there is no understanding; hence he reproaches the speaking, and only later reproaches the understanding. Only one with such understanding can speak for others in accordance with that understanding. Thus, concluding previously, he says understanding should be like this; how could one rashly speak to the householders? Regarding 'four inexpressibles', one should know that the nature of phenomena cannot even be spoken of through the Perfect Teaching, so how much less could it be spoken of through the three teachings? Regarding 'quoting the Lotus Sūtra', it is to verify that following the ultimate, the three teachings are termed 'remainder'. When even the shared and separate teachings are still confused [about it], how much more so the Tripiṭaka teaching?"