大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 32.43

32.43

疏「此復二意」下，上來總明；此下別釋，會性相宗。初三性釋，通有二宗，疏文有三：初直屬經文，是法性意，依他無性為圓成故。二「由遍計」下，正釋偈意。由妄分別有上眼等，既從緣生故體即空，空即圓成。三「故唯識」下，引文證成。二宗三性已見玄文，今此略引依圓二性。初之二句是依他性，故彼釋云：妄分別緣即是遍計。然妄分別是能遍計，眼等依他是所遍計，計為實故成遍計性，由此能生染分依他，故此遍計能起依他，是彼依故。

Regarding the Commentary's 'Here there are again two intentions' onward: above was the general explanation; below is the specific explanation, reconciling the Nature and Characteristics traditions. First, the explanation by the three natures applies to both traditions. The Commentary's text has three parts: first, directly assigning it to the sūtra text, which is the intention of the Dharmatā [tradition], because the lack of nature in other-dependent nature is the consummate [nature]. Second, from 'Due to the imagined...' onward, directly explaining the meaning of the verse. Due to false conceptualization there are the above eyes and so forth; since they are arisen from conditions, their essence is empty, and emptiness is the consummate [nature]. Third, from 'Therefore the Vijñaptimātra...' onward, citing text to corroborate and establish it. The three natures of the two traditions have already appeared in the Profound Meaning; here, it briefly cites the two natures of other-dependence and consummate reality. The first two lines are the other-dependent nature, so its commentary says: the condition of false conceptualization is the imagined [nature]. However, false conceptualization is that which imagines, and the other-dependent eyes and so forth are that which is imagined; imagining them as real forms the imagined nature, and through this, it can generate defiled other-dependence; therefore, this imagined [nature] can give rise to other-dependence, being its support.