楞伽阿跋多羅寶經註解 4.142

4.142

前言常無常者多矣，而獨未明如來所證之法為常為無常，以理言之，前所說者豈外於此？苟不別明，惑者昧焉，故復為未了者請。答中先言所證非常非無常，蓋其所證理絕百非，圓離眾過，異彼外計，故言雙非。若謂常、無常，則二俱有過也。若如來是常者，則同外道計神我為能作之常。主，即神我也。而如來言常者無所作，故常而非常，非彼有作之常而有過也。若如來無常者，是有所作，同於五陰，為有相之所相，其相無性，故陰壞應斷，而如來之常則不斷也。

Previously, permanence and impermanence have been discussed extensively, but it was not yet specifically clarified whether the dharma realised by the Tathāgata is permanent or impermanent. Speaking in terms of principle, how could what was previously spoken be outside of this? Yet if it is not separately clarified, the confused would be blinded by it; therefore, he asks again for the sake of those who have not understood. In the reply, he first states that the realisation is neither permanent nor impermanent; for the principle realised by him transcends the hundred negations and is completely free from all faults, differing from the calculations of the tīrthikas; hence he negates both. If one asserts permanence or impermanence, both entail faults. If the Tathāgata were permanent, he would be identical with the tīrthikas' calculation of the spirit-self as a creator that is permanent. 'Lord' is precisely the spirit-self. But when the Tathāgata speaks of permanence, there is no creation; hence it is permanent and yet not permanent, not that permanence of creation that entails fault. If the Tathāgata were impermanent, he would be something created, identical with the five aggregates, being the characterized of characterized forms; their characteristics lack intrinsic nature, so when the aggregates perish they should be annihilated, whereas the Tathāgata's permanence is unannihilated.