大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 37.35

37.35

疏「有為之性湛若虛空，便是無為體常遍故」者，釋其性如虛空，故說無有盡。其性，即上有為性故。其性之言，略有二義：一但約無性之性，以有為法緣生性空，緣生性空即同無為，竪窮三際曰常、橫無不周曰遍、故是無為。則上《淨名》但明不盡有為、不住無為，二相猶別，未能顯為即無為矣。今明即性之相是名有為，即相之性便是無為，故是玄矣。二者其性如虛空，即如來藏性，體離斷常故如虛空。故《勝鬘》云「邊見者，凡夫於五受陰，我見妄想計著生二見，是名邊見，所謂常見、斷見。見諸行無常，是斷見非正見。見涅槃常，是常見非正見。妄想見故，作如是見。於身諸根分別思惟，現法見壞，於有相續不見起於斷見，妄想見故；於心相續愚暗不解，不知剎那間意識境界，起於常見妄想見故。」又云「死者，諸根壞。生者，諸根起。非如來藏有生有死，如來藏離有為相，如來藏常住不變。是故如來藏，是依、是持、是建立。」釋曰：據上經文，以盡即無盡，是故雙非常無常見。故次文云「智者說無盡，此亦無所說。」

As for the commentary's phrase “the nature of the conditioned is serene like empty space, which is precisely the unconditioned essence being permanent and pervasive,” this explains that because its nature is like empty space, it is said to have no exhaustion. “Its nature” refers back to the aforementioned nature of the conditioned. The word “its nature” has, briefly, two meanings: First, considering merely the nature that is devoid of intrinsic nature: because conditioned dharmas arise from conditions and are empty of intrinsic nature, arising from conditions and being empty of intrinsic nature is precisely identical to the unconditioned; vertically exhausting the three times is called “permanent,” and horizontally leaving nothing unencompassed is called “pervasive”—hence it is the unconditioned. Then the aforementioned Vimalakīrtinirdeśa merely clarified not exhausting the conditioned and not abiding in the unconditioned, wherein the two characteristics were still distinct and could not yet reveal that the conditioned is precisely the unconditioned. Now it is clarified that the characteristic that is identity with the nature is called the conditioned, and the nature that is identity with the characteristic is precisely the unconditioned; hence it is profound. Second, that its nature is like empty space refers to the tathāgatagarbha nature, whose essence is free from annihilation and permanence and therefore like empty space. Thus the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra says: “Extremist views: worldlings, with regard to the five grasping aggregates, generate two views out of the erroneous conceptualization of self-views; these are called extremist views, namely, the view of permanence and the view of annihilation. Seeing conditioned formations as impermanent is the view of annihilation, not the right view. Seeing nirvāṇa as permanent is the view of permanence, not the right view. Because of erroneous conceptual views, they form such views. Discursively contemplating the bodily faculties, seeing disintegration in the present life, and not seeing continuation in existence, they give rise to the view of annihilation due to erroneous conceptual views. Being benighted and lacking understanding regarding the continuation of mind, and not knowing the realm of mental consciousness within an instant, they give rise to the view of permanence due to erroneous conceptual views.” It also says: “Death is the disintegration of the faculties. Birth is the arising of the faculties. It is not that the tathāgatagarbha has birth and death. The tathāgatagarbha is free from the characteristics of the conditioned; the tathāgatagarbha is permanently abiding and unchanging. Therefore, the tathāgatagarbha is the support, the holder, and the foundation.” Explanation: Relying on the above sūtra passage, because exhaustion is precisely inexhaustibility, both the view of permanence and the view of impermanence are negated. Therefore the next passage says: “The wise speak of inexhaustibility, yet here nothing is spoken of either.”