大般涅槃經疏 31.16

31.16

「善男子我終不與」下，明用中第三習解除惑之用，亦言無爭之用。何以除惑？已得中道觀故能去之，若無此觀何由能斷。大分為二，先明如來習解已滿故不與世爭、二明諸菩薩等觀解除惑。前文又三：一觀解、二論義、三結成不爭之用。此即初文。世間智人體中道理雙說有無，佛亦如是不違彼說。復是由佛得中道故，故與物和，所以不爭，豈非中道觀解之用？世間愚人所述乖理，不當法相，言有言無違於佛旨，如與佛爭，況世間人。

From "Good son, I never contend with" downwards, within clarifying functioning, this is the third: the functioning of habitual understanding in eliminating delusion, also called the functioning of non-contention. Why does it eliminate delusion? Because one has already attained the contemplation of the middle way, one can remove it; if one lacked this contemplation, by what means could one sever it? Broadly, it is divided into two: first, clarifying that the Tathāgata's habitual understanding is fully perfected, so he does not contend with the world; second, clarifying that the contemplation and understanding of all bodhisattvas and others eliminate delusion. The former text again has three parts: first, contemplative understanding; second, debate; third, concluding with the functioning of non-contention. This is the first text. Wise people in the world embody the principle of the middle way and speak of both existence and non-existence; the Buddha is also like this, not contradicting their statements. Furthermore, it is because the Buddha has attained the middle way that he harmonizes with things and therefore does not contend; how could this not be the functioning of the contemplative understanding of the middle way? What worldly fools state violates principle and does not accord with the characteristics of dharmas; in speaking of existence and non-existence, they contradict the Buddha's intent, as though contending with the Buddha, not to mention worldly people.