維摩經略疏垂裕記 4.159

4.159

Second, collective examination. Regarding "collectively explaining non-self in terms of the four great elements," Jingxi states: question: why does it not say 'simile' but instead say 'in terms of'? Answer: 'in terms of' means relying on and completing; relying on the external to break the internal, it merely says 'in terms of'. Now, deducing that external earth, and so forth, lacks a master, one knows that the body lacks a master. Knowing the internal in terms of the external, it is therefore said to be 'in terms of'. The remaining elements should be understood accordingly. Outsiders say one relies on the soul; internally it is said that this body relies on the various elements. Looking at the body in relation to the elements, the elements are real dharmas. Outsiders are confused about this, claiming that there is a soul, and so forth. The four great elements are not one; on which does the soul rely? If it relies on all four together, there should be four selves. The commentary says 'four bodies', which directly refutes the four selves; because the self relies on the body, it says 'four selves', as both the internal and the external possess the four great elements.