大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 55.18

55.18

疏「論有三段」下，第三舉論廣釋。具引論文，科釋畢備，細尋可見。但文中云「合上非有，即以非自性合上不住」者，由上論云「以非自性不可得，是不住故。」即知非自性不可得，是聲名等從緣無性故不可得。如彼風畫依空無住，故云「以無自性合上不住」也。疏「出無性不住所以」者，謂聲從緣生，故無自性。依法立名，故是虛假。故肇公云：「名無得物之功，物無當名之實。名無得物之功，非名也。物無當名之實，非物也。」若實即名，見面則應知名。若名即實，召火則應燒口。故知名是假設，安有自性？即如風等與虛空合。疏「然論經云佛智」者，即會論經。今經二經，同異可知。

Regarding the commentary's words "The treatise has three sections": this is the third part, adducing the treatise to explain in detail. It fully cites the treatise text, and the structural analysis and explanation are completely provided; it can be seen by examining it closely. However, the text says: "Applying [it to] 'non-existent' above, that is, applying 'lacking intrinsic nature' to 'non-abiding' above." This is because the treatise above says: "Because lacking intrinsic nature cannot be grasped, it is non-abiding." Thus we know that lacking intrinsic nature cannot be grasped because sounds, names, and so forth lack nature through conditions and therefore cannot be grasped. Just as those drawings in the wind depend on empty space without abiding, so it says "applying lacking intrinsic nature to non-abiding above". Regarding the commentary's words "Showing the reason why lacking intrinsic nature is non-abiding": this means sounds are produced from conditions, so they have no intrinsic nature. Names are established relying on phenomena, so they are provisional. Hence Master Zhao said: "Names do not have the power to grasp things; things do not have the actuality to match names. If names lack the power to grasp things, they are not names; if things lack the actuality to match names, they are not things." If actuality were identical to names, seeing a face one should know the name; if names were identical to actuality, calling out 'fire' should burn the mouth. Hence we know that names are conventional designations; how could they have intrinsic nature? Thus they match the wind and so forth combining with empty space. Regarding the commentary's words "However, the treatise sūtra says 'the Buddha's cognition'": this is to reconcile [it with] the treatise sūtra. The similarities and differences between the two versions of the sūtra can be known.