維摩經略疏垂裕記 7.63

7.63

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*.