大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 38.24

38.24

疏「若依辨中邊論」下，則雙證前生滅不生滅皆無常義，而各有所囑可知。遠公釋《淨名經》，多用《中邊論》意，意取圓成實性釋不生滅是無常義，故云實相理窮名為畢竟，體寂無為名不生不滅。此不生不滅是彼無常真實性，故名無常義。餘例此知。而疏言「初後二性不生滅」者，遍計無可生滅故，圓成體常湛然故。疏「又無作者，非常非無常」下，第四取《涅槃》意雙非釋也。亦有二意：一者實相之中二邊斯寂，如向所引《中論》云「諸法實相中，無我無非我。」亦應云：諸法實相中，無常無無常。諸法實相中，無苦無樂、無淨無不淨、無空無不空。以破常故說於無常，非謂有無常；破無常故說常，非謂有於常也。二者非常者，性徹相故。非無常者，相徹性故。等思之。

In the commentary, from "If according to the Madhyāntavibhāga-śāstra" downward: this doubly proves the preceding points that both arising and ceasing and non-arising and non-ceasing are the meaning of impermanence, each having its respective assignment, as can be known. Master Yuan, in explaining the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra, mostly used the ideas of the Madhyāntavibhāga-śāstra, intending to take the consummate nature (pariniṣpanna) to explain that non-arising and non-ceasing is the meaning of impermanence. Hence he said: "When the principle of the real mark is exhausted, it is called ultimate; when its essence is quiescent and unconditioned, it is called non-arising and non-ceasing. This non-arising and non-ceasing is the true nature of that impermanence; hence, it is named the meaning of impermanence." The rest can be understood by analogy. And when the commentary states that "the first and last two natures do not arise or cease," it is because the imputed nature (parikalpita) has nothing that could arise or cease, and the consummate nature's essence is eternally serene. In the commentary, from "Furthermore, 'non-doing' means neither permanent nor impermanent" downward: fourth, it adopts the intent of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] to explain via double negation. This also has two meanings: first, within the real mark, both extremes are quiescent, just as cited above from the Madhyamakaśāstra: "Within the real mark of all dharmas, there is neither self nor non-self." One should also say: within the real mark of all dharmas, there is neither permanence nor impermanence; within the real mark of all dharmas, there is neither suffering nor bliss, neither purity nor impurity, neither emptiness nor non-emptiness. Because it refutes permanence, it speaks of impermanence, not meaning that impermanence exists; because it refutes impermanence, it speaks of permanence, not meaning that permanence exists. Second, "not permanent" is because the nature penetrates marks; "not impermanent" is because marks penetrate the nature. Reflect upon these matters in this way.