大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 37.22

37.22

第五菩薩。疏「初三所執無相觀」者，然此中明於三性，上修三無性觀。言三性者，一遍計所執性、二依他起性、三圓成實性。三無性者，一相無自性性、二生無自性性、三勝義無自性性。三性之義，已見上文。今疏科文名中，一一含二。今言所執無相觀者，所執即遍計所執，無相即相無自性性觀。次三「緣起無生」者，緣起即依他起性，古經論中亦名緣起性，今疏文從簡，故云緣起。言無生者，即生無自性性觀。後三「圓成無性」者，圓成即圓成實性。言無性者，即勝義無自性性。偏言無性者，向真性上說無性故。亦是古名，並從簡耳。又皆雙明者，以其三性即三無性故。故《唯識》云「即依此三性，說彼三無性。初則相無性，次無自然性，後由遠離前所執我法性。」故二種三性不相去離。然法相宗三性即有性，三無性則無性。有無義殊，故彼偈云「故佛密意說，一切法無性。」意云：既言密意說三無性，則不礙於三有性也。若法性宗，此二三性有無無礙、互奪雙亡，皆悉自在。

[Regarding] the fifth bodhisattva: regarding the Commentary's 'The first three [verses are] the contemplation of the lack of characteristics in the imagined': here it clarifies the three natures, upon which one cultivates the contemplation of the three non-natures. As for the three natures, they are: first, the imaginary nature; second, the other-dependent nature; third, the consummate nature. As for the three non-natures, they are: first, the nature of the lack of characteristics; second, the nature of the lack of origination; third, the nature of the lack of ultimate reality. The meaning of the three natures has already appeared above. In the headings of the Commentary now, each includes two. Now, saying 'the contemplation of the lack of characteristics in the imagined': 'the imagined' is the imaginary [nature], and 'lack of characteristics' is the contemplation of the nature of the lack of characteristics. In the next three, 'origination by conditions is unproduced': 'origination by conditions' is the other-dependent nature, which in ancient sūtras and treatises was also called 'nature of conditioned origination'; the Commentary's text now follows brevity, so it says 'conditioned origination'. Saying 'unproduced' is the contemplation of the nature of the lack of origination. In the last three, 'consummation is natureless': 'consummation' is the consummate nature. Saying 'natureless' is the nature of the lack of ultimate reality. Singling out the phrase 'natureless' is because it speaks of naturelessness with respect to the true nature. It is also an ancient name, both following brevity. Furthermore, both are clarified together because the three natures are themselves the three non-natures. Therefore the Vijñaptimātra [treatise] says: 'Relying on these three natures, those three non-natures are explained: the first is the non-nature of characteristics, the next is the non-nature of self-existence, and the last is due to being far removed from the previously grasped nature of self and dharmas.' Therefore, the two sets of three natures do not depart from each other. However, in the Faxiang school, the three natures are existent nature, while the three non-natures are non-nature. The meanings of existence and non-existence are distinct; hence their verse says: 'Therefore the Buddha with implicit intent spoke / of all dharmas as having no nature.' The meaning is: since it says that with implicit intent he spoke of the three non-natures, this does not obstruct the three existent natures. If in the Faxing school, these two sets of three natures have no obstruction between existence and non-existence; mutually usurping, both are eliminated, and all are entirely unhindered.