大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 20.23

20.23

疏「又往應群機而不去」等者，第三唯約用說也。往應合是去，應無應相故不去。「恒歸寂滅」合是來，滅不可得故不來。又即體之用，往而不去；用即體故，歸而不來。然前對於佛上明去、機上明來，此對於機上明去、佛上明來。又前對機見佛來、此對佛見機來。然三義雖殊，皆顯不來即不去也。疏「由此」下，釋無功用。摩尼約身、天鼓約口、無思約意，文意可知也。疏「二通釋」者，然既言不生滅約行，不來去約境，此亦是局，何名為通？已上是賢首意。不生滅局境而不通行，不來去局行而不通境，今翻其不通令通，則四義俱通境行，故名為通。於中，先總、後「謂妄念」下別。亦約三性以成觀行。初即遍計，契同無相，何有生滅？二「又雖起大用」下約依他起觀、三「又常稱真」下約圓成觀。「此約行釋」下，結屬。「約境釋不來」下，亦約三性：初即遍計、二「又緣會」下約依他、三「又諸法即如」下約圓成。而並從揀略各出一義，例前不生亦可具五。亦應前三別說四五融通，如遍計上亦應云情有即是理無故不來，理無即是情有故不去等。但改「生滅」二字為「來去」二字，餘準前思。

Regarding the commentary's "Furthermore, proceeding to respond to the multitudes of capacities yet not going..." and so forth: this is the third, explaining solely in terms of function. Proceeding to respond should be going, but because the response lacks the characteristic of a response, it does not go. 'Constantly returning to quiescence' should be coming, but because cessation cannot be attained, it does not come. Furthermore, being function identical with essence, it proceeds without going; because function is identical with essence, it returns without coming. Now, the preceding [explanation] explained going with respect to the Buddha and coming with respect to capacities, whereas this one explains going with respect to capacities and coming with respect to the Buddha. Furthermore, the preceding was seeing the Buddha come in relation to capacities, while this one is seeing capacities come in relation to the Buddha. However, although the three meanings differ, they all reveal that not coming is precisely not going. Under the commentary's "From this...", it explains effortless action (anābhoga). The jewel (maṇi) is in terms of the body; the celestial drum is in terms of speech; being free from ideation is in terms of the mind; the intent of the text is clear. Regarding the commentary's "Second, comprehensive explanation": since it was stated that unarisen and unceasing pertains to practice, and neither coming nor going pertains to the cognitive object, this is also limited; why is it called comprehensive? The above was the intent of Xianshou. Unarisen and unceasing was limited to the object and did not extend comprehensively to practice; neither coming nor going was limited to practice and did not extend comprehensively to the object. Now, reversing their non-comprehensiveness to make them comprehensive, all four meanings extend comprehensively to both object and practice, and hence it is called comprehensive. Therein, first is general, and then from "meaning deluded thought" onwards is specific. It also relies on the three natures to establish contemplation practice. The first is the imagined: harmonizing with the absence of characteristics, how could there be arising and ceasing? Second, from "Furthermore, although activating great function..." onwards, contemplation is based on the dependent. Third, from "Furthermore, constantly matching the real..." onwards, contemplation is based on the consummate. From "This explanation is in terms of practice" onwards, it concludes the attribution. From "Explaining not coming in terms of the object" onwards, it is also based on the three natures: the first is the imagined; second, from "Furthermore, when conditions assemble..." onwards, it is based on the dependent; third, from "Furthermore, all dharmas are identical with tathatā..." onwards, it is based on the consummate. And all of them, drawing upon conciseness, each put forward one meaning; by analogy with the previous 'unarisen', each could also possess the five [meanings]. The preceding three should also be explained separately, and the fourth and fifth merged and harmonized. As on the imagined, one should also say: 'existential imputation is principled non-existence, hence not coming; principled non-existence is existential imputation, hence not going', and so forth. Merely changing the two words 'arising and ceasing' to the two words 'coming and going', the rest may be inferred from what precedes.