仁王經疏 3.389

3.389

釋曰：第四、常無常異。或可無礙與解脫異。即依此文，自有兩釋。一真諦三藏立如是義：佛果功德菩提涅槃皆無生滅，故通伏難。以三宗義，謂外難云：無間道時慧有生滅，如何能生無生滅智？故作此言：金剛時慧雖有生滅，能證知無生滅理。由斯勝慧證理深故，此心若滅，便能證得累盡涅槃，亦能證得無生無滅常住菩提。故前經言「薩云若覺非有非無、湛然清淨、常住不變，同真際、等法性。」二慈恩三藏作如是說：金剛時慧雖有生滅，而能證解無生滅理，故能證得果盡涅槃，亦能證得常住法大菩提也。前經所說常住不變者，就勝說故且說實相，而非觀照。

The explanation says: Fourth, the distinction between the permanent and the impermanent. Alternatively, it is the distinction between unimpeded [path] and liberation [path]. Relying upon this text, there are of themselves two explanations. First, the Tripiṭaka Master Paramārtha establishes this meaning: the merits of the buddha-fruit, bodhi and nirvāṇa, are both free of arising and ceasing, which therefore resolves an implicit objection. Relying on the tenets of the three treatises, this refers to an external objection stating: "At the time of the uninterrupted path, wisdom has arising and ceasing; how could it give rise to wisdom that is free of arising and ceasing?" Therefore, he makes this statement: Although wisdom at the vajra-[like path] has arising and ceasing, it is able to realize and know the principle that is free of arising and ceasing. Because this supreme wisdom realizes the principle deeply, if this mind ceases, it can then realize and attain nirvāṇa in which afflictions are exhausted, and it can also realize and attain eternally abiding bodhi that is free of arising and ceasing. Therefore, the earlier sūtra states: "Sarvajña-awakening is neither existent nor non-existent, serene and pure, eternally abiding and immutable, identical with the limit of reality, and equal to the nature of phenomena." Second, the Tripiṭaka Master of Ci'en makes this statement: Although wisdom at the vajra-[like path] has arising and ceasing, yet it is able to realize and understand the principle that is free of arising and ceasing; therefore, it can realize and attain nirvāṇa in which fruits [of defilement] are exhausted, and it can also realize and attain the great bodhi of eternally abiding phenomena. What the earlier sūtra spoke of as eternally abiding and immutable was stated in terms of the superior aspect, thus provisionally speaking of the true mark, and not contemplative illumination.