大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 81.10

81.10

疏「第三至出沒常湛」等者，以此中經文有二：先明出沒之跡、後「而實如來」下明常湛之本。疏中有五：一立理；二「無不為」下直消文；三「不礙出沒」下覆疎顯意；四「是知寂然不動」下結成相融，上句體不礙用，下句用不礙體；五「豈可隨於」下結彈惑情。然此五段，多用無名第三〈位體〉，論云「其為稱也，因應而作，顯跡為生、息跡為滅，生名有餘、滅名無餘。然則有無之稱本乎無名，無名之道于何不名？是以至人居方而方、止圓而圓，在天而天、處人而人。原夫能天能人者，豈天人之所能哉？果以非天非人，故能天能人耳。其為治也，故應而不為、因而不施，因而不施故施莫之廣、應而不為故為莫之大，為莫之大故乃返於小成，施莫之廣故乃歸乎無名。」又下云「意謂至人寂怕無兆、隱顯同原，存不為有、亡不為無。何則？佛言：『吾無生不生，雖生不生；無形不形，雖形不形。』以知存不為有。經云『菩薩入無盡三昧，盡見過去滅度諸佛。』又云『入於涅槃而不涅槃。』以知亡不為無。亡不為無，雖無而有；存不為有，雖有而無。雖有而無，故所謂非有；雖無而有，故所謂非無。然則涅槃之道，果出有無之域絕、言象之逕斷矣。子乃云：聖人患於有身，故滅身以歸無；勞勤莫先於有智，故絕智以淪虛。無乃乖乎神極、傷於玄旨者哉。」上一段論文義理連環，但觀所引，自見疏意。其結彈文，亦彼章末云「而惑者居見聞之域、尋殊應之迹，秉執規矩而擬大方，欲以智勞至人、形患大聖，謂捨有入無，因以名之。豈謂採微言於聽表，拔玄根於虛壤者哉？」

On the commentary’s "Third, up to ‘appearing and disappearing while ever serene’": because the sūtra text here has two parts: first it clarifies the traces of appearing and disappearing, and next, from "Yet in truth the Tathāgata..." onward, it clarifies the root that is ever serene. Within the commentary there are five parts: 1. establishing the principle; 2. from "There is nothing it does not do" onward, directly expounding the text; 3. from "Without impeding appearing and disappearing" onward, reviewing and elucidating to reveal the meaning; 4. from "Hence we know that quiescence without moving..." onward, concluding with their mutual integration—the former phrase showing that essence does not impede function, and the latter phrase showing that function does not impede essence; 5. from "How could one follow..." onward, concluding with a critique of deluded sentiments. These five sections largely draw upon the third chapter of the Nameless, "Position and Essence" (Weiti). That treatise states: "Its designation is made in response [to things]; manifesting traces is called arising, and withdrawing traces is called ceasing; arising is named with remainder, and ceasing is named without remainder. Thus designations of existence and non-existence are rooted in the nameless; how could the Dao of the nameless not be named as anything? Therefore, the utmost person is square when dwelling in squareness, round when abiding in roundness, celestial among devas, and human among humans. As for what enables one to be celestial or human, how could that be the ability of devas or humans? It is indeed because one is neither celestial nor human that one can be celestial or human. As for his governance, he responds without acting, and adapts without bestowing. Adapting without bestowing, his bestowal is therefore none greater; responding without acting, his action is therefore none greater. Because his action is none greater, he returns to minor accomplishment; because his bestowal is none greater, he reverts to the nameless." Further below it states: "The intended meaning is that the utmost person is tranquil without omens, concealing and revealing sharing the same origin; being present does not constitute existence, and perishing does not constitute non-existence. Why so? The Buddha said: 'There is no arising that I do not undergo, yet though I arise, I do not arise; there is no form that I do not take, yet though I take form, I do not take form.' By this we know that being present does not constitute existence. A sūtra states: 'The bodhisattva enters the inexhaustible samādhi, seeing all past Buddhas who have passed into extinction.' It also states: 'Entering nirvāṇa yet not entering nirvāṇa.' By this we know that perishing does not constitute non-existence. Perishing not constituting non-existence, though non-existent, it exists; being present not constituting existence, though existent, it is non-existent. Though existent, it is non-existent, hence it is termed 'not existent'; though non-existent, it exists, hence it is termed 'not non-existent'. Thus the Dao of nirvāṇa indeed transcends the realm of existence and non-existence, and the paths of speech and imagery are severed. Yet you say: 'The sage loathed having a body, so he extinguished the body to revert to non-existence; no toil exceeds having knowledge, so he severed knowledge to sink into emptiness.' Does this not run contrary to the ultimate spirit and harm the mysterious import?" The reasoning in this section of the treatise is linked like a chain; merely by looking at what is cited, the intention of the commentary is self-evident. The text of the critique also comes from the end of that chapter, which says: "Yet the deluded reside in the realm of sight and hearing, pursuing the traces of distinct responses; grasping the compass and square to measure the Great Square, they wish to toil the utmost person with knowledge and burden the Great Sage with form, claiming that he renounced existence to enter non-existence, thereby naming him. How could they be said to pluck subtle words beyond hearing, or uproot the mysterious root in the soil of emptiness?"