大方廣佛華嚴經疏 29.20

29.20

三徵釋中，先徵意云：設我假立法體不無，今無念著，其故何耶？後釋意云：法性爾故。文分為二：初總顯法體離相、後「非一」下別彰所離。今初，先顯法體，無生故不可取著，即《般若》中第三義也，三世求生不可得故。從無而有故名為生，已生已有不可名生，如母已有不名生故。未生未有亦不名生，若未生名生，眾生菩提應名為生，諸未生法悉應名生。現在之法剎那不住，恒屬已未，離於已未無別現故。為生之理不出三世，三世既無，生將安寄？既無有生則亦無滅，無生無滅則無境可取，於何執著？次應問云：生是能生之相，可許推無所相。法體豈應非有？故復釋云：一切諸法自相如是，離生滅外有為法體不可得故、從緣而生相即無相故、生即無生故。此顯相空。次應問云：法從緣生，相可觸目，云何言無？故復釋云：從緣而生，無自性故。此顯性空。自性相離，雙結上二。又顯法本自離，非推之使離。二別彰所離者，上但云離，為離何相？謂一二等。文有十對：初二約數；次二約量，外望論大小、內望論廣陜；次二約理智，淺深約事理、靜論語識智；次二約教法，處非處者邪正教相對，法非法者善惡相對；後二約體相，初對約體，色心之體不可得故，離色心外非體之法亦叵得故。後對約相，為法之相不出有無。設非有非無，若有此者亦不出有，若無此句亦不出無。但遣有無，萬法斯寂，由離性相故觸法斯非。

Third, in the question and explanation: first, the meaning of the question is: supposing I provisionally posit that the essential substance of dharmas is not non-existent, now that there is no thought or attachment, what is the reason for this? Next, the meaning of the explanation is: because the nature of phenomena is just so. The text is divided into two parts: first, generally revealing that the essential substance of dharmas is free from marks; next, from 'not one' onward, specifically showing what is departed from. Now, first, it first reveals the essential substance of dharmas: because it is unarisen, it cannot be grasped or attached to, which is the third meaning in the Prajñā[pāramitā], for seeking arising across the three times is ungraspable. Coming from non-existence into existence is called arising; what has already arisen and already exists cannot be called arising, just as what already exists in a mother is not called giving birth. What has not yet arisen and does not yet exist is also not called arising; if what has not yet arisen were called arising, the bodhi of sentient beings should be called arising, and all unarisen dharmas should all be called arising. Present dharmas do not abide for a single kṣaṇa; they constantly belong to the past or future; apart from the past and future, there is no distinct present. The principle of arising does not go beyond the three times; since the three times are non-existent, where could arising reside? Since there is no arising, there is also no ceasing; with neither arising nor ceasing, there is no objective realm to be grasped—unto what could one cling? Next, one might ask: arising is the mark of what can produce; it may be granted that analysis shows the marked to be non-existent, but how could the essential substance of dharmas not exist? Therefore it explains further: the self-character of all dharmas is like this, because apart from arising and ceasing, the essential substance of conditioned dharmas cannot be found; because what is produced from conditions has marks that are precisely non-marks; and because arising is precisely non-arising. This shows the emptiness of marks. Next, one might ask: dharmas are produced from conditions and their marks meet the eye, so why say they are non-existent? Therefore it explains further: because they are produced from conditions, they lack self-nature. This shows the emptiness of nature. Departing from self-nature and marks jointly concludes the two above. It also shows that dharmas are originally apart from them by themselves, not made to depart by analytical deduction. Second, as for specifically showing what is departed from: above it only said 'departing'; what marks are departed from? It means one, two, and so forth. The text has ten pairs: the first two are in terms of number; the next two are in terms of measure—viewed externally, discussing large and small; viewed internally, discussing broad and narrow; the next two are in terms of principle and wisdom—shallow and deep are in terms of phenomena and noumenon, while quiet contemplation speaks of consciousness and wisdom; the next two are in terms of teachings and dharmas—proper base and improper base form a pair contrasting false and correct teachings, while dharma and non-dharma form a pair contrasting good and evil; the last two are in terms of essence and marks: the first pair is in terms of essence, because the essence of form and mind cannot be found, and apart from form and mind, non-essential dharmas are also unobtainable. The latter pair is in terms of marks, for the marks of dharmas do not go beyond existence and non-existence. Supposing there is 'neither existence nor non-existence', if this exists, it does not go beyond existence; if this phrase does not exist, it does not go beyond non-existence. Merely dispelling existence and non-existence, the myriad dharmas become tranquil; because they are free from nature and marks, whatever dharma is encountered is negated.