維摩經略疏垂裕記 7.63

7.63

八、簡方等通前。荊溪云：問自淨名等者，亦應合有方等生酥通乳酪耶。若其有者，何不說之？答：文雖爾，應須具如《法華玄》文第十卷中。今若復欲論理有者，鹿苑理密說彈斥。又《華嚴》中四何須更論，亦是其例。既其一切俱通初後，豈可方等不通於初？準此問前亦應問後，文無者略。若爾，一音之教非無小得，但失於鈍，以歷五時，故不全用玄文所引。

Eighth, examining whether the Vaipulya pervades what preceded. Jingxi says: Regarding 'Question: from Jingming' and so forth: there should also properly be the Vaipulya's raw curd pervading milk and sour milk. If it exists, why is it not expounded? The answer is: although the text is such, it should fully correspond to the tenth roll of the *Fahua Xuanwen*. Now if one again wishes to argue that it exists in principle, at the Deer Park it secretly expounded reproach in principle. Furthermore, why would the four within the *Avataṃsaka* need to be discussed again? That is also an analogous case. Since everything pervades the beginning and the end, how could the Vaipulya not pervade the beginning? By this standard, having questioned what precedes, one should also question what follows; that the text omits it is due to brevity. If so, the teaching of a single voice is not without small attainments, but it merely misses the dull-witted; traversing the five periods, it therefore does not fully use what was cited in the *Xuanwen*.