大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 36.54

36.54

疏「故中論云」下，引證，即〈如來品〉初廣破有如來竟，末後結云「若於一異中，如來不可得。五種求亦無，云何受中有？又所受五陰，不從自性有，若無有自性，云何有他性？以如是義故，受空受者空。云何當以空，而說空如來？」次破於空，四句皆拂。頌云「空則不可說，非空不可說，共不共叵說，但以假名說。」何以故？寂滅相中無無常等四，寂滅相中無無邊等四。次問云：若如是破，應無如來。次偈答云「邪見深厚者，則說無如來。如來寂滅相，分別有亦非。如是性空中，思惟亦不可，如來滅度後，分別於有無。」次總拂，偈云「如來過戲論，而人生戲論。戲論破慧眼，是皆不見佛。」長行釋云「戲論名憶念，分別有此彼。」又云：此〈如來品〉初中後思惟如來定性不可得，是故偈說如來所有性即是世間性，如來無有性世間亦無性。此上諸偈，文義相連，疏家但引同今經偈。言「用斯文」者，明是龍樹取此經意而為論偈。

Regarding the Commentary's citation from "Hence the Madhyamakaśāstra says..." onward: this cites evidence. That is, at the beginning of the Chapter on the Tathāgata, having extensively refuted that there is a Tathāgata, it concludes at the end: "If in sameness or difference, / The Tathāgata cannot be found; / Sought in five ways, he is also absent, / How could he exist within appropriation? / Moreover, the five skandhas that are appropriated / Do not exist from intrinsic nature; / If they have no intrinsic nature, / How could they have an other-nature? / By such a meaning, / Appropriation is empty and the appropriator is empty. / How could one by means of emptiness / Speak of an empty Tathāgata?" Next, refuting emptiness, it sweeps away all four propositions. The verse says: "Emptiness cannot be spoken of; / Non-emptiness cannot be spoken of; / Both and neither cannot be spoken of; / It is only stated through conventional designation." Why? Within the characteristic of quiescence, there are not the four such as impermanence; within the characteristic of quiescence, there are not the four such as boundlessness. Next, it asks: If it is refuted like this, there should be no Tathāgata. The subsequent verse answers: "Those whose wrong views are profound / Say that there is no Tathāgata. / The Tathāgata is the characteristic of quiescence; / Discriminating that he exists is also incorrect. / In such nature-emptiness, / Conceptual thinking is also inadmissible; / After the Tathāgata passes into extinction, / One discriminates between existence and non-existence." Next, sweeping it all away, the verse says: "The Tathāgata transcends prapañca, / Yet people give rise to prapañca. / Prapañca destroys the eye of wisdom; / None of them see the Buddha." The prose commentary explains: "Prapañca is named recollective thinking, discriminating this and that." It also says: In this Chapter on the Tathāgata, through beginning, middle, and end, a fixed nature of the Tathāgata is sought and cannot be found; therefore the verse states that whatever nature the Tathāgata possesses is the nature of the world; the Tathāgata has no nature, and the world also has no nature. The texts and meanings of the above verses are interconnected; the author of the Commentary merely cited them as identical to the present sūtra verse. The words "using this text" clarify that Nāgārjuna took the meaning of this sūtra to make the treatise verses.