維摩經略疏垂裕記 7.226

7.226

二、「問但」下，更簡遍圓。問意者，圓教觀心施財既名法施，前三教人行布施時，若依當教修觀，得名法施以不？答中云「亦有此義」者，荊溪云：此非正意，義立而已，故云亦有。以三教心不能即故，故三教理理外論事，事不見理不稱圓宗。及但約觀以為解釋，故云但，非圓普。「出沒」者，有無也。秖圓教中於諸經論有無不定，何但前之三教文耶？故四教文並得名為出沒不定。

Second, from "inquiring whether only..." onward, further distinguishing the pervasive and the perfect. The question's intention is: since in the perfect teaching contemplating the mind and giving material things is named the gift of the Dharma, when persons of the prior three teachings practice giving, if they cultivate contemplation according to their respective teaching, can it be named the gift of the Dharma or not? In the answer, regarding "there is also this meaning," Jingxi says: This is not the primary intention; it is merely established conceptually, hence it says "there is also." Because the minds of the three teachings cannot be identical, therefore the principle of the three teachings discusses phenomena outside of principle; phenomena do not see principle and do not accord with the perfect lineage. And it is merely an explanation in terms of contemplation, hence it says "merely," not the perfect and universal. Regarding "appearing and disappearing," it means presence and absence. Even within the perfect teaching, presence and absence in the various sūtras and treatises are indefinite; how could it be limited to the texts of the prior three teachings? Thus the texts of all four teachings may all be described as appearing and disappearing indefinitely.