大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 20.24

20.24

疏「三展轉釋」。所以為此釋者，有三意：一則上來但當句釋，今顯互相釋故，如經云「一切法無來，是故無有生」等。即此亦名相因釋也。二「又既無來無去則非一異」者，次正是展轉釋。欲明不生滅等四含義無盡，故略舉八不，即中論宗。論云「不生亦不滅，不常亦不斷，不一亦不異，不來亦不去。」而青目釋之，有展轉相因釋。今取此勢，故為此釋。云何不來不去則得非一非異耶？謂若有來去則有能所，能所為異，對此為一。今無來去，故無一異。云何不生不滅則得不常不斷？謂若許有生，生即是有。定有則常。若許有滅，滅則是無。定無則斷。今無生滅，何有斷常？故《中論》「問云：不生不滅已總破一切法，何故復說此六事耶？答：為成不生不滅故。謂有人不信不生不滅，而信不常不斷。若深求不常不斷，即是不生不滅，故知二義相成。」從「智契」下，釋無功用。三「是則不生之生」下，生與不生展轉相成。上來諸不相成，總顯不生之理。今則性相相成，以此不生不同斷滅，故不礙於生。若礙於生，非真不生，故不礙生成不生也。是則緣生故無性，無性故緣生，二義相成，真不生也。餘可例知。

The commentary's "Third, reciprocal explanation". The reason for providing this explanation involves three intentions: First, what came before explained each clause on its own; now, to show that they explain each other, as the sūtra states: 'All dharmas have no coming, and therefore there is no arising', and so on. This is also called a mutually conditioning explanation. Second, "Furthermore, since there is neither coming nor going, there is neither oneness nor difference": next is precisely the reciprocal explanation. Wishing to clarify that the four [aspects] such as non-arising and non-ceasing contain endless meanings, it briefly raises the eight negations, which is the tenet of the Madhyamakaśāstra. The treatise states: 'Neither arisen nor ceased, neither permanent nor annihilated, neither one nor different, neither coming nor going.' When Piṅgala commented on this, he provided a reciprocal, mutually conditioning explanation. Now adopting this momentum, [the commentary] therefore gives this explanation. How is it that neither coming nor going yields neither oneness nor difference? If there were coming and going, there would be the agent and the object; agent and object constitute difference, while relative to this, there would be oneness. Now, without coming or going, there is neither oneness nor difference. How is it that neither arising nor ceasing yields neither permanence nor annihilation? If one accepts that there is arising, arising is existence. Determinate existence is permanence. If one accepts that there is ceasing, ceasing is non-existence. Determinate non-existence is annihilation. Now, without arising and ceasing, how could there be annihilation or permanence? Therefore, the Madhyamakaśāstra asks: 'Non-arising and non-ceasing have already refuted all dharmas in general; why speak of these six items again?' The answer states: 'To establish non-arising and non-ceasing. That is, there are those who do not believe in non-arising and non-ceasing, but believe in non-permanence and non-annihilation. If one investigates non-permanence and non-annihilation deeply, that is itself non-arising and non-ceasing; therefore we know the two meanings mutually establish each other.' From "Cognition harmonizes..." onwards, it explains effortless action. Third, from "Thus the arising of non-arising..." onwards, arising and non-arising reciprocally establish each other. The various negations above mutually established each other to generally reveal the principle of non-arising. Now, nature and characteristic mutually establish each other: because this non-arising is not the same as nihilistic annihilation, it does not obstruct arising. If it obstructed arising, it would not be true non-arising; hence, not obstructing arising establishes non-arising. Thus, because it is conditionally arisen, it is natureless; because it is natureless, it is conditionally arisen. The two meanings mutually establish each other, which is true non-arising. The rest can be known by analogy.