大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 81.19

81.19

疏「第九至體離二邊」，亦即彼〈超境〉中意。彼中有名先徵出云：「請覈妙道之本為有為無？果若有也，雖妙非無，雖妙非無故則入有境；果若無也，無則無差，無而無差則入無境。總而括之即而究之，無有異有而非無、無有異無而非有者明矣。而曰：有無之外別有妙道，非有非無謂之涅槃。吾聞其語矣，未即於心也。」第五〈超境〉答云「然則有無雖殊，俱未免於有也。此乃言像之所以形、是非之所以生，豈足以統夫幽極而擬夫神道者乎？是以論稱出有無者，良以有無之數止乎六境之內，六境之內非涅槃之宅也，故借出以祛之。庶悕玄之流髣髴幽途，託情絕域得意亡言，體其非有非無耳。豈曰有無之外別有一有而可稱哉？」今但云體離二邊，非唯離有離無，若實若虛、若處非處等皆二邊也。於中，先反釋，身是體故先明；後「由非實故」下，順釋。

On the commentary's: "The ninth, up to: its essence transcends the two extremes": this is also the meaning in chapter [5], "Transcending the Spheres" of that [treatise]. In that [text], one who has a name first raises a question, saying: "I ask to scrutinize the root of the wondrous Way: is it existent or non-existent? If indeed it is existent, though wondrous, it is not non-existent; and because though wondrous it is not non-existent, it enters the sphere of existence. If indeed it is non-existent, being non-existent it is without difference; and being non-existent and without difference, it enters the sphere of non-existence. Grasping them comprehensively and investigating them directly, it is clear that there is no being different from being that is not non-being, and there is no non-being different from non-being that is not being. Yet it is said: outside of being and non-being there is a separate wondrous Way, and neither being nor non-being is called nirvāṇa. I have heard these words, but they have not registered in my mind." The fifth chapter, "Transcending the Spheres," answers, saying: "However, although being and non-being are distinct, neither escapes from being. These are that by which words and images are formed, and that by which right and wrong arise; how could they be sufficient to encompass the profound ultimate and model the spiritual Way? Therefore, that the treatise speaks of transcending being and non-being is truly because the categories of being and non-being stop within the six cognitive spheres, and within the six cognitive spheres is not the abode of nirvāṇa; thus it borrows 'transcending' to dispel them, in the hope that those who aspire to the profound might dimly glimpse the mysterious path, entrust their sentiments to the transcendent realm, attain the meaning and forget the words, and realize that it is neither being nor non-being. How could it be said that outside of being and non-being there is a separate, distinct being that can be designated?" Now it merely says that the essence transcends the two extremes; this is not only transcending being and transcending non-being—whether real or empty, whether appropriate locus or non-locus, all are two extremes. Within this, it first explains in reverse: because the body is the essence, it clarifies this first. Thereafter, from "Because it is not real" downwards, it explains in forward sequence.