維摩經略疏垂裕記 7.223

7.223

二、「經論」下，雙釋，二：初、通約四教財法兩殊。此答初義也。以說法為法施，義通偏小。二、「今不」下，別約圓融，即財是法。此答次義也。則財是法，名為法施，不通前三。文為二：初、通明施義，二：初、略示。「財中具足一切佛法」者，財即色塵也。豈秖心遍，其色亦遍。色何以遍？色則心故。所以三千依正不出一塵，故云具足一切佛法。是知不但唯心亦乃唯色。若不唯色，色非心耶？唯色唯心一體無二。從要從的須指唯心，庶幾精詳無令失意。

Second, from "the sūtras and treatises..." onward, explaining both, which has two parts: first, commonly in terms of the four teachings, material and Dharma [giving] are distinct. This answers the first meaning. Taking the preaching of the Dharma as the gift of the Dharma has a meaning that extends to the partial and small. Second, from "now it is not..." onward, specifically in terms of the perfect fusion, the very material thing is the Dharma. This answers the second meaning. That the very material thing is the Dharma, named the gift of the Dharma, does not extend to the prior three [teachings]. The text has two parts: first, commonly clarifying the meaning of giving, which has two parts: first, briefly indicating. Regarding "within material [giving] all Buddha-dharmas are fully complete": the material thing is precisely the form-dust (rūpa). Does only the mind pervade? Form also pervades. Why does form pervade? Because form is precisely mind. Therefore the three thousand [realms of] circumstantial and direct [rewards] do not go beyond a single dust mote; hence it is said to be fully complete with all Buddha-dharmas. One should know from this that it is not only mind-only, but also form-only. If it were not form-only, would form not be mind? Form-only and mind-only are of one essence, not two. Proceeding from the essential and precise, one must point to mind-only, hoping for thorough precision without losing the meaning.