大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 37.22

37.22

[Regarding] the fifth bodhisattva: regarding the Commentary's 'The first three [verses are] the contemplation of the lack of characteristics in the imagined': here it clarifies the three natures, upon which one cultivates the contemplation of the three non-natures. As for the three natures, they are: first, the imaginary nature; second, the other-dependent nature; third, the consummate nature. As for the three non-natures, they are: first, the nature of the lack of characteristics; second, the nature of the lack of origination; third, the nature of the lack of ultimate reality. The meaning of the three natures has already appeared above. In the headings of the Commentary now, each includes two. Now, saying 'the contemplation of the lack of characteristics in the imagined': 'the imagined' is the imaginary [nature], and 'lack of characteristics' is the contemplation of the nature of the lack of characteristics. In the next three, 'origination by conditions is unproduced': 'origination by conditions' is the other-dependent nature, which in ancient sūtras and treatises was also called 'nature of conditioned origination'; the Commentary's text now follows brevity, so it says 'conditioned origination'. Saying 'unproduced' is the contemplation of the nature of the lack of origination. In the last three, 'consummation is natureless': 'consummation' is the consummate nature. Saying 'natureless' is the nature of the lack of ultimate reality. Singling out the phrase 'natureless' is because it speaks of naturelessness with respect to the true nature. It is also an ancient name, both following brevity. Furthermore, both are clarified together because the three natures are themselves the three non-natures. Therefore the Vijñaptimātra [treatise] says: 'Relying on these three natures, those three non-natures are explained: the first is the non-nature of characteristics, the next is the non-nature of self-existence, and the last is due to being far removed from the previously grasped nature of self and dharmas.' Therefore, the two sets of three natures do not depart from each other. However, in the Faxiang school, the three natures are existent nature, while the three non-natures are non-nature. The meanings of existence and non-existence are distinct; hence their verse says: 'Therefore the Buddha with implicit intent spoke / of all dharmas as having no nature.' The meaning is: since it says that with implicit intent he spoke of the three non-natures, this does not obstruct the three existent natures. If in the Faxing school, these two sets of three natures have no obstruction between existence and non-existence; mutually usurping, both are eliminated, and all are entirely unhindered.