維摩經略疏垂裕記 6.105

6.105

二、「問佛」下，歸過旃延。荊溪云：出沒多端者，或沒大義兼用小名，即如今教；或沒大名而用小義，即如迦旃延，此非佛意。或先大名後用小義，如通二乘，亦非佛意。或先小名後用大義，如今淨名所用者，此是得佛意。或先小名兼用小義，如通菩薩，別教亦然，亦非佛意。或先後俱小，如三藏教，固非佛意。或先後俱大，即通教中鈍菩薩，半有佛意。於一音中並有上來眾多意趣，其中雖有非佛意者，莫非一代逗機之教。逗不得宜，故云非耳。但旃延用不稱佛意，於機無益反致議訶。

Second, from "Asking about the Buddha" onward, attributing the fault to Kātyāyana. Jingxi says: "Regarding 'appearing and disappearing in many ways': either submerging the Mahāyāna meaning and concurrently using Hinayāna names, as in the present teaching; or submerging Mahāyāna names and using Hinayāna meaning, as Kātyāyana did, which is not the Buddha's intention. Or first Mahāyāna names and later using Hinayāna meaning, as in the common two vehicles, which is also not the Buddha's intention. Or first Hinayāna names and later using Mahāyāna meaning, as what Jingming presently uses, which grasps the Buddha's intention. Or first Hinayāna names and concurrently using Hinayāna meaning, as for common bodhisattvas, and the separate teaching is also like this, which is also not the Buddha's intention. Or both earlier and later being Hinayāna, as in the Tripiṭaka teaching, which is certainly not the Buddha's intention. Or both earlier and later being Mahāyāna, which is the dull bodhisattvas in the common teaching, partially possessing the Buddha's intention. Within a single voice there are all the numerous intents above; although among them there are those that are not the Buddha's intention, none is not the teaching suited to capacities of a lifetime. Being suited without appropriateness, they are therefore called 'not.' But Kātyāyana's application did not accord with the Buddha's intention; being of no benefit to the capacities, it instead provoked discussion and reproach."