大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 38.56

38.56

疏「三遍計情有理無」者，疏有兩重：第一別約三性以明事理。若法相宗，遍計依他所明二義唯約於事，圓成二義方是於理。今法性宗，遍計理無、依他無性，即是於理。非有即有，是理徹於事；有即非有，即事徹於理等。其圓成二義，即就理上自論無礙。下第三無性對，於圓成亦然，揀非事事無礙及權實等，故上云三對但顯事理無礙。疏「又上三中」，第二重釋，則初三對以遍計依他為事，二無性為理事理交徹。非有即有者，相無自性性，即遍計所執。有即非有者，遍計所執，即相無性。次對例知。三如前釋。

Regarding the commentary's statement, "Three: the parikalpita exists conceptually but is absent in principle": the commentary has two levels. First, it specifically analyzes principle and phenomena in terms of the three natures. According to the Faxiang school, the two meanings explained under the parikalpita and the paratantra pertain solely to phenomena, and only the two meanings of the pariniṣpanna pertain to principle. Now, according to the Faxing school, that the parikalpita is absent in principle and the paratantra is devoid of intrinsic nature is precisely principle. That "non-existence is existence" is principle pervading phenomena; that "existence is non-existence" is phenomena pervading principle, and so forth. As for the two meanings of the pariniṣpanna, they are discussed as unobstructed in and of themselves upon principle. Below, in the third pair on the lack of intrinsic nature, the same holds true for the pariniṣpanna, distinguishing it from the non-obstruction among phenomena and phenomena, the provisional and the real, and so on; thus it was said above that the three pairs merely demonstrate the non-obstruction of principle and phenomena. The commentary says: "Furthermore, among the above three...": in this second exposition, the first three pairs take the parikalpita and the paratantra as phenomena, and the two forms of naturelessness as principle, with principle and phenomena interpenetrating. "Non-existence is existence" means that naturelessness of characteristics is itself the parikalpita-svabhāva. "Existence is non-existence" means that the parikalpita-svabhāva is itself the naturelessness of characteristics. The next pairs are to be known by analogy. The third is as explained before.