大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 32.17

32.17

疏「又若性離於法」下，覆成上義。上云性何預法，即是離義。「即成斷滅」者，性離於法，非即法空，故性成斷。言「法離於性本無今有」者，性出自古，此為本有。法既離性，故本無今有。本無今有，有何過耶？則虛空中本無眾生，常出眾生。若爾，法即於性應非本無今有，何以論云從無之有曰生，自有還無稱滅。釋曰：緣會事顯則是本無今有，無始眾生不可得言本無今有。況《涅槃》云「本無今有、本有今無，三世有法無有是處。」上半約相、下半約性，既相與性不得相離，則本無之法非全本無，今有之法非全新有。是故下云三世有法無有是處。此偈廣義，已見初品。

The commentary's statement, "Furthermore, if nature were separated from phenomena," repeatedly establishes the above meaning. Above, it said, "how could the nature participate in phenomena?" which is the meaning of separation. As for "it would result in annihilation," if nature were separated from phenomena and not identical to the emptiness of phenomena, the nature would result in annihilation. As for "phenomena being separated from nature would be non-existent originally and existing now," nature has existed from of old; this is original existence. Since phenomena are separated from nature, they would be non-existent originally and existing now. What fault is there in being non-existent originally and existing now? [It would mean that] sentient beings, originally non-existent in empty space, would constantly emerge. If so, phenomena being identical to nature should mean they are not non-existent originally and existing now; why then does the treatise say that coming from non-existence into existence is called "arising," and going from self-existence back to non-existence is called "cessation"? The explanation is: when conditions assemble and things become manifest, that is "non-existent originally and existing now"; beginningless sentient beings cannot be said to be "non-existent originally and existing now." Furthermore, the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: "Non-existent originally and existing now, originally existing and now non-existent—that there are phenomena of the three periods of time is impossible." The first half is based on characteristics; the second half is based on nature. Since characteristics and nature cannot be separated from each other, phenomena that are originally non-existent are not entirely non-existent originally, and phenomena that exist now are not entirely new in their existence now. Therefore, it says below that "that there are phenomena of the three periods of time is impossible." The extensive meaning of this verse has already appeared in the first chapter.