說無垢稱經疏 3.168

3.168

贊曰：空理義云，俗有所住，有去有來；真中無住，何去何來？俗有增益之思，故不順空，執為有故、有損減思故，不隨無相、不應無願，撥為無故。真中無增益故，順法空無損減故，隨無相、應無願。應理義云：依他隨真，亦無去來，無所住故。去者過去、來者未來，由無現住，便無去來。若有所住，去來便依他，不隨無相、應無願；以隨真如，無增減思，故能順空、隨無相、應無願。古云「法無增損」，乍似別牒，准此新文乃釋上義。古「法離好醜」，新文所無，理外加之，不知何也。

The Commentary states: The exposition of the Principle of Emptiness says: in the conventional, there is abiding, there is going, and there is coming; within the ultimate, there is no abiding—what going or coming could there be? In the conventional, there is the thought of superimposition (samāropa), and therefore it does not accord with emptiness, grasping [dharmas] as existent; because there is the thought of deprecation (apavāda), it does not conform to the signless (animitta) and does not correspond to the wishless (apraṇihita), repudiating them as non-existent. Because within the ultimate there is no superimposition, it accords with the emptiness of dharmas; because there is no deprecation, it conforms to the signless and corresponds to the wishless. The exposition of the Reasonable Principle says: other-dependent [nature], conforming to the ultimate, also has no going or coming, because it has nowhere it abides. 'Going' refers to the past; 'coming' refers to the future. Because there is no abiding in the present, there is neither going nor coming. If there were anywhere it abided, going and coming would be other-dependent, not conforming to the signless and not corresponding to the wishless; because it conforms to tathatā, it lacks the thoughts of increase and decrease (superimposition and deprecation), and therefore is able to accord with emptiness, conform to the signless, and correspond to the wishless. The old [translation] says: 'The Dharma has no increase or decrease.' That momentarily seems to cite a separate phrase, but according to this new text, it actually explains the preceding meaning. The old [version's] 'The Dharma is free from good and bad' is absent in the new text; it was added outside of the principle, and it is unknown why.