仁王護國般若波羅蜜多經疏 2.121

2.121

解曰：前說無為體無三際，此說無為不住三際。雖無為法有自相住，不同此中有住不住，故為異也。謂由實相性自空寂，不可說言住此住彼，故云不住。遍一切法不可言離，體非住離得說住離，若定住離即不俱也。自下諸文，准此應悉。從此第三五蘊即離。

Explanation: Previously it was said that the substance of the unconditioned has no three periods; here it is said that the unconditioned does not abide in the three periods. Although unconditioned dharmas have their own characteristic of abiding, it is not like the abiding or non-abiding spoken of here, and hence it is different. That is to say, because the real mark is by its nature empty and quiescent, it cannot be said to abide here or abide there, and is therefore said to "not abide". Pervading all dharmas, it cannot be said to be separated from them; its substance is neither abiding nor separated, yet it can be spoken of as abiding or separated, for if it definitely abided or was separated, they would not be co-present. The passages below should all be understood according to this. From here is the third, identity and separation regarding the five aggregates.