大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 69.21

69.21

疏「第二無性為性」下，此自性無生中有三：一會二經、二釋文、三會中道。非有即是無性，有性即是為性，故云義旨不殊。二「無性即是」下，釋文。先釋無性。執法有性，名之為我，如地堅性、水濕性等。以無我故、名性無生。言「非先有今無」者，揀斷滅無。《中論》云「先有而今無，是則為斷滅」故。「亦非全無真體」下，釋為性字。於中二：先反立、次「以前觀事」下順成妙有。「故論云」下，引證。言「觀事」者，此無我理是四地乃至七地所觀事故，明知是有。又是所忍法故，若無所忍則無如可證。三「斯則非有非無」下，會歸中道。有二中道，而文三節：初正立二種中道、二引論證、三結成。今初。一非有非無為中道。無性則非有，為性則非無，既即以無性為性，故云此二不二。即以性無體有為真諦中道。二「又此理」下，不即不離為中道。即事顯理為二諦中道，七實皆事，不之一字即是於理，斯即於諦常自二、於解常自一。今通達此無二，真入第一義也。二「故論」下，引論證上。疏家立二中道，皆因論主無二相言。由無二故，法無我理得為諸法自性無生。遠公破古人言「觀心與法無我理心境不二」非也者，實如所破。三「斯則」下，結成。

Regarding the commentary's "Second, having no intrinsic nature is the intrinsic nature" and below: within this [section on] the intrinsic nature being unarisen, there are three parts: first, reconciling the two sūtras; second, explaining the text; third, harmonising with the Middle Way. "Non-existent" is just "having no intrinsic nature," and "having intrinsic nature" is just "is the intrinsic nature"; hence it is said that their doctrinal purport is not different. Second, from "Having no intrinsic nature is..." downward explains the text. It first explains "having no intrinsic nature." Grasping phenomena as possessing an intrinsic nature is called a "self," such as the solid nature of earth, the wet nature of water, and so forth. Because there is no self, it is called the unarisen nature. The phrase "it is not that it previously existed and now is absent" excludes the non-existence of annihilationism, because the Madhyamakaśāstra states: "Existing previously and being absent now—this indeed is annihilationism." From "Nor is it utterly devoid of a true essence" downward explains the words "is the intrinsic nature." Within this there are two parts: first, positing it by negation; next, from "Because of the previous contemplation of matters..." downward, directly establishing marvellous existence. From "Hence the treatise states..." downward cites proof. As for "contemplation of matters," because this principle of selflessness is the matter contemplated from the fourth stage up to the seventh stage, one clearly knows it exists. Furthermore, because it is the phenomenon endured, if there were no object to be endured, there would be no suchness to realise. Third, from "This, then, is neither existence nor non-existence..." downward reconciles and returns to the Middle Way. There are two Middle Ways, and the text has three sections: first, directly establishing the two kinds of Middle Way; second, citing the treatise as proof; third, concluding. Now for the first: 1. Neither existence nor non-existence is the Middle Way: having no intrinsic nature is non-existence, while being the intrinsic nature is non-non-existence; since having no intrinsic nature is itself the intrinsic nature, it is therefore said that these two are non-dual. This takes the nature being absent while the essence exists as the Middle Way of the ultimate truth. 2. From "Furthermore, this principle..." downward: neither identical nor separate is the Middle Way. Expressing principle through phenomena is the Middle Way of the two truths: all seven actualities are phenomena, and the single word "not" is principle; this means that in terms of truths they are ever two, yet in terms of understanding they are ever one. Now, thoroughly penetrating this non-duality is truly entering the supreme meaning. Second, from "Hence the treatise..." downward cites the treatise to prove the above. That the commentator establishes the two Middle Ways is in both cases due to the treatise master's words on the "non-dual characteristic." Because of non-duality, the principle of the selflessness of phenomena can serve as the unarisen intrinsic nature of all phenomena. Master Huiyuan's refutation of the ancients' statement that "the contemplating mind and the principle of the selflessness of phenomena are non-dual as mind and object" is incorrect, is indeed just as refuted. Third, from "This, then..." downward concludes.