大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 14.24

14.24

疏「即般若三論中一分之義」者，以三論中〈四諦品〉前以空遣有，〈四諦品〉中以空立有。故偈云「以有空義故，一切法得成。若無空義者，一切則不成。」又標名以《中論》，意顯不滯空有，非但明空。又偈云「因緣所生法，我說即是空，亦名為假名，亦名中道義。」則三觀齊驅、三諦無礙，豈獨空耶？故有言學龍猛宗墮惡趣空，斯言可怖。故云一分之義，即三觀中一空觀義。疏「九二諦無礙宗」者，即真不礙俗，俗不礙真，於諦常自二，於解常自一。通達此無二，真入第一義。二諦並非雙，恒乖未曾各，亦其義耳。今略其旨，故指前文。所以不會第十宗者，第十亦可名二諦無盡宗。然必融於前，故不別立耳。又上三宗，諸師各立，故今敘之。其第十宗非彼所競，故不言耳。

Regarding the Commentary's statement "namely, a portion of the meaning within the Prajñā[-pāramitā-sūtras] and the Three Treatises": because in the Three Treatises, prior to the "Chapter on the Four Noble Truths," existence is eliminated through emptiness, whereas within the "Chapter on the Four Noble Truths," existence is established through emptiness. Thus the verse says: "Because of the meaning of emptiness, / All phenomena are able to be accomplished. / If the meaning of emptiness were absent, / Nothing at all could be accomplished." Furthermore, designating it by the name Madhyamakaśāstra is intended to show that it does not stagnate in emptiness or existence, and does not merely elucidate emptiness. Moreover, the verse says: "Phenomena produced through causes and conditions, / I declare to be empty; / They are also designated as conventional names, / And are also the meaning of the middle way." Thus the three contemplations proceed in parallel, and the three truths are unhindered—how could it be solely empty? Therefore, when someone says that studying the lineage of Nāgārjuna causes one to fall into the emptiness of the evil destinies, this is a terrible statement. Hence it says "a portion of the meaning," which is the meaning of the single contemplation of emptiness among the three contemplations. Regarding the Commentary's statement "The ninth, the tenet of the non-obstruction of the two truths": that is, the ultimate does not obstruct the conventional, and the conventional does not obstruct the ultimate; with respect to the truths, they are constantly two of themselves, yet with respect to understanding, they are constantly one of themselves. Thoroughly comprehending this non-duality is truly entering the ultimate truth. The two truths are not a pair, constantly divergent yet never separate—such is its meaning as well. Here its essential import is abbreviated, so reference is made to the preceding text. The reason why the tenth tenet is not reconciled is that the tenth may also be called the tenet of the inexhaustible two truths. However, it necessarily integrates the preceding ones, and therefore is not separately posited. Furthermore, the above three tenets were each established by various masters, and are therefore recounted now; the tenth tenet was not a matter of contention among them, and so it is not mentioned.