大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 54.39

54.39

五「言無常愛者」下，隨難釋論。疏「大善決定」者，此句標名。二「隨順」下，論釋相。三「即普覆名大」，疏釋論名。疏「論又云次前」下，舉論釋不住義。於中二：先舉論、後「謂由」下疏釋論。於中三：初牒論正釋、二敘異解、三廣釋不住。今初又二：先正釋；後「前雖有應用亦智所成」者，遮難。恐有難云：常果因是智，無常果因為用。既為應用，豈不是悲？答：因善中已成不住，故為此答。二「有云」下，敘異解，許不違理，即遠公意。謂常果因能得涅槃，故於世間不一向住；無常愛果因及此大善，能隨世間，故於涅槃不一向住。三「然約雙遮」下，廣釋不住之義。復有二義，謂住、不住。論意即是雙住之義，云非一向住，不言無住。然即由非一向住，故成無住。猶如船師，非一向在此岸住，亦非一向在彼岸住，故成無住運載眾生。而言「謂大悲故常處生死」等者，等字多義：一者等取大智故常處涅槃，是俱住義。二大悲故不住涅槃，大智故不住生死，即二俱不住。又一明俱不住者，有二義故不住生死：一見生死過患故不可住、二由見生死本空故無可住。上二皆約智故不住。有二義故不住涅槃：一見涅槃本自有故不待住、二由不異生死故不可住。又智與理冥無別異故，能所絕跡故，無能所住也，則雙不住生死涅槃。上皆約智。二明俱住者，有二義故住於生死：一由見過患，起大悲故住，為練除也；二見空故住，不怖也。上句約悲，下句約智。又有二義：一見過生厭故住、二見空即涅槃故住。此即常在生死，恒在涅槃也。此二皆約智，前了相，後了性。有二義故，常住涅槃：一常證理故住、二常化眾生故住，以所化眾生即涅槃故。上句約智，下句雙具悲智。又合生死涅槃二境，體無二故，無偏住處，故云無住。又即住此無二之處，故亦云住。又合住不住之二行以為無礙，良以不住為住、住為不住，唯一無分別行，故無二也。又合境行二門，以法界法門絕能所故，平等法性唯一味故，無境行之異也。上開則多門，合則無二。開合無二，總為一大無障礙門，言思斯絕。

Fifth, from "Regarding 'desire for impermanence'..." onward, it explains the treatise following the difficult points. The Commentary's words, "great good determination," is the phrase that designates the name. Second, from "accordance with..." onward, the treatise explains its characteristics. Third, "that is, universal cover is named 'great'" is the Commentary's explanation of the treatise's name. The Commentary's words, "The treatise also says, 'following the preceding'..." onward, cites the treatise to explain the meaning of non-abiding. In this there are two parts: first, citing the treatise; afterwards, from "meaning that due to..." onward, the Commentary explains the treatise. In this there are three points: first, repeating the treatise and explaining it correctly; second, recounting different interpretations; third, broadly explaining non-abiding. Now the first again has two parts: first, the correct explanation; afterwards, "Although previously there was functioning in response, it was also accomplished by cognition" refutes a difficulty. Fearing someone might raise the objection: "The cause of the permanent fruit is cognition, while the cause of the impermanent fruit is function. Since it is functioning in response, how is it not compassion?" The answer: within causal good [determination], non-abiding has already been established, which is why this answer is given. Second, from "Someone says..." onward, it recounts a different interpretation, conceding that it does not contravene principle; this is Master Huiyuan's view. It means that the cause of the permanent fruit can attain nirvāṇa, and therefore does not abide exclusively in the mundane world; the cause of the fruit of desiring the impermanent, as well as this great good [determination], can accord with the mundane world, and therefore do not abide exclusively in nirvāṇa. Third, from "However, in terms of double negation..." onward, it broadly explains the meaning of non-abiding. There are further two meanings: abiding and non-abiding. The intent of the treatise is precisely the meaning of double abiding: it says "not abiding exclusively," but does not say "without abiding." Yet precisely because of not abiding exclusively, non-abiding is accomplished. Just as a ferryman does not abide exclusively on this shore, nor does he abide exclusively on the other shore, and so by being non-abiding he carries sentient beings across. As for the statement, "meaning that on account of great compassion one constantly dwells in saṃsāra, etc.," the word 'etc.' has multiple meanings: First, 'etc.' includes: on account of great cognition one constantly dwells in nirvāṇa; this is the meaning of abiding in both. Second, on account of great compassion one does not abide in nirvāṇa, and on account of great cognition one does not abide in saṃsāra; that is, non-abiding in both. Again, to clarify non-abiding in both, there are two meanings for not abiding in saṃsāra: first, because of seeing the faults and perils of saṃsāra, one cannot abide; second, because of seeing that saṃsāra is fundamentally empty, there is nothing in which to abide. Both of the above are non-abiding in terms of cognition. There are two meanings for not abiding in nirvāṇa: first, seeing that nirvāṇa is fundamentally self-existent, it does not depend on abiding; second, because it is not different from saṃsāra, one cannot abide. Furthermore, because cognition is merged with principle without difference, and traces of subject and object are severed, there is neither subject nor object of abiding; thus one does not abide in either saṃsāra or nirvāṇa. All of the above are in terms of cognition. Second, to clarify abiding in both, there are two meanings for abiding in saṃsāra: first, by seeing the faults and perils, one generates great compassion and therefore abides in order to purify and eliminate them; second, seeing emptiness, one therefore abides without fear. The upper phrase is in terms of compassion, the lower phrase in terms of cognition. Furthermore, there are two meanings: first, seeing faults generates revulsion, hence one abides; second, seeing emptiness as nirvāṇa itself, hence one abides. This means constantly being in saṃsāra and perpetually being in nirvāṇa. Both of these are in terms of cognition: the former penetrates characteristics, the latter penetrates the nature. There are two meanings for constantly abiding in nirvāṇa: first, constantly realizing principle, hence one abides; second, constantly transforming sentient beings, hence one abides, because the sentient beings being transformed are themselves nirvāṇa. The upper phrase is in terms of cognition; the lower phrase possesses both compassion and cognition. Furthermore, combining the two spheres of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, their essences are not two, so there is no one-sided place to abide; hence it is called non-abiding. Furthermore, it is precisely abiding in this non-dual place, and therefore it is also called abiding. Furthermore, combining the two practices of abiding and non-abiding into unobstructedness, it is truly that non-abiding is abiding, and abiding is non-abiding; it is solely a single non-conceptual practice, and therefore they are not two. Furthermore, combining the two approaches of sphere and practice: because the dharma-gate of the dharmadhātu severs subject and object, and the equal dharmatā is solely of one taste, there is no difference between sphere and practice. Above, when opened up, there are many approaches; when combined, they are not two. Opening and combining are not two, together constituting one great unobstructed gate, wherein words and thought are utterly severed.