大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 24.40

24.40

疏「無住處者拂約性」，云「法性如虛空，諸佛於中住。」似有住處。今謂法性如空，則無所住。況體無生，安有能住不住？諸法方住法性，故上文云「諸佛於中住」，故《金剛經》云「應無所住而生其心」，若心有住則為非住。《大品》云「若住一切法，不住般若波羅蜜。不住一切法，方住般若波羅蜜。」故《大般若》會會之初，皆先明無住。《淨名》亦說「無住為本」。

Regarding the commentary's statement that "Having no dwelling place refutes [the attachment regarding] nature": it is said, "The dharma-nature is like empty space, and all Buddhas dwell within it." This seems to imply a dwelling place. Here it is maintained that if the dharma-nature is like space, then there is nowhere to dwell. Moreover, since the essence is unarisen, how could there be an agent that dwells or does not dwell? When all dharmas first dwell in the dharma-nature, then the earlier text says "all Buddhas dwell within it." Therefore the *Vajracchedikā* says, "One should give rise to that mind without dwelling anywhere"; if the mind has a dwelling, then that is non-dwelling. The *Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā* states: "If one dwells in all dharmas, one does not dwell in prajñāpāramitā. When one does not dwell in all dharmas, only then does one dwell in prajñāpāramitā." Therefore, at the beginning of each assembly of the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā*, non-dwelling is always clarified first. The *Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa* also states, "Taking non-dwelling as the root."