大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 75.43

75.43

疏「三以是夢故」下，二釋雙非中，亦二：先正釋、後「然此俱非」下融通。亦為揀濫，謂尋常雙是，義涉相違；尋常雙非，義參戲論。故令雙融，令離二謗，成具德句。謂非但二不相違，亦乃二句相成，故云「若不奪無令盡無以為無」。言奪無令盡者，非無也。奪有令盡者，非有也。謂若無非無則無亦無。何者？若無不盡，是定性無，故非真無。下句亦然。若無非無，則無亦有。以有不盡，是定性有，非真有故。故以非有非無，成上亦有亦無。亦更合說俱句成於俱非，含在俱句及下結中，故略不明。若欲別明，應云：以亦有是即無之有，故成非有；以亦無是即有之無，故成非無。疏「存亡不礙俱泯自在方為夢自在法門」者，結成也。存即是有，亡即是無，俱即亦有亦無，泯即非有非無。皆互交徹，故云自在無礙。又存者存四句，亡者亡四句，俱者亦存亦亡，泯者非存非亡，故曰夢自在法門。互為抗行，豈名自在？

Regarding the commentary's "Third, because it is a dream" and following, the second [part] explains the dual negation, which also has two parts: first, a direct explanation, and subsequent to "However, this dual negation..." an interpenetrating integration. It also serves to eliminate confusion: commonly, affirming both involves mutual contradiction, and commonly, negating both touches upon frivolous discourse (prapañca). Therefore, [the commentary] integrates both, causing one to depart from the two calumnies and complete a statement endowed with virtue. This means not only that the two do not contradict each other, but also that the two statements mutually establish one another. Hence it says: "If one does not negate non-existence so that non-existence is thoroughly exhausted, non-existence cannot be taken as non-existence." The phrase "negate non-existence so that it is thoroughly exhausted" refers to non-non-existence; "negate existence so that it is thoroughly exhausted" refers to non-existence. This means that if non-existence is not non-non-existence, then non-existence is also obliterated. Why? If non-existence is not exhausted, it would be an intrinsically existent non-existence, and hence not true non-existence. The subsequent line is also like this: if non-existence is not non-existence, then non-existence is also existence; because if existence is not exhausted, it would be an intrinsically existent existence, and not true existence. Thus, through neither existence nor non-existence, the preceding both-existence-and-non-existence is established. Furthermore, it should also be explained that the proposition of "both" establishes the "neither"; this is implicitly contained within the "both" proposition and the concluding remarks below, so it is omitted here. If one wished to explain it separately, one would say: because "both existence" is an existence that is identical to non-existence, it establishes "non-existence"; because "both non-existence" is a non-existence that is identical to existence, it establishes "non-non-existence." When the commentary states, "Preservation and elimination do not obstruct one another, and simultaneous vanishing is unobstructed—only then is it the dharma gate of dream-like unhindered mastery," this is the conclusion. Preservation is existence, elimination is non-existence, both is both-existence-and-non-existence, and vanishing is neither-existence-nor-non-existence. All interpenetrate mutually, hence they are described as unhindered mastery. Furthermore, preservation preserves the four propositions, elimination eliminates the four propositions, both both-preserves-and-eliminates, and vanishing neither-preserves-nor-eliminates; hence it is called the dharma gate of dream-like unhindered mastery. If they were to oppose each other, how could it be called unhindered mastery?