維摩經略疏垂裕記 5.132

5.132

二、外了根緣內善知見用別教破說法不當根緣，二：初、敘意分科。荊溪云：當了至隨病授藥者，問前已約圓，此何仍別？答：前正在通。通中真理雖含圓別，但俗未是知根之智。目連可中自因此門入圓入別，尚須勸以中智照俗使成妙俗。況前況為利根通論機緣不同，剋仍須別，故以別訶良由此也。「一訶不知根、二訶有滯」者，訶滯仍與通教略同，以通教中先真後假故也，故先訶其不知根緣。況訶有滯，正是不知根緣之由。文在後者，文後意前故也。

Second, externally discerning faculties and conditions while internally excelling in knowledge and vision, using the Separate Teaching to refute preaching the Dharma not matching faculties and conditions, in two parts: first, stating the idea and dividing into headings. Jingxi says: "Regarding 'One ought to understand... to dispensing medicine according to the illness', question: Previously it was already in terms of the Perfect; why is this still the Separate? Answer: The previous specifically lay in the Shared. Although the true principle within the Shared contains the separate and perfect, its conventional is not yet the wisdom that knows faculties. If Maudgalyāyana himself should enter the separate or perfect through this gate, he must still be exhorted to illuminate the conventional with the wisdom of the middle so as to make it subtle conventional [truth]. Furthermore, the preceding was a general discussion of differing capacities and conditions for sharp faculties; strictly speaking, it must still be the Separate; hence reproaching with the Separate is truly because of this. Regarding 'First, reproaching not knowing faculties; second, reproaching having attachment', reproaching attachment is still roughly the same as in the Shared Teaching, because within the Shared Teaching the true comes first and the provisional later; hence he first reproaches his not knowing faculties and conditions. Furthermore, reproaching having attachment is precisely the cause of not knowing faculties and conditions. The reason the text places it after is that the text is behind, but the idea is prior."