肇論疏 1.39

1.39

第二、明真解也。余，我也。謂，言也。不如前解，故曰不然也。何者放光云法無去來無動轉者，竺法護前翻《大品》名曰放光，以此經初廣明如來放光等事，即以為名也。彼經既云法無去來，何有生死交謝？復云無動轉者，何有寒暑迭遷耶？亦可通說，未必須配也。亦可「何者」字，是肇法師語，非經文也。尋夫不動之作豈釋動以求靜，釋者，捨離。尋《放光經》作不動之語者，非謂捨動而別論靜，即求靜於動法之中，即動而為靜耳。言豈釋者，不釋也。必求靜於諸動下，覆上意可見也。

Second, clarifying true understanding. 'I' (yu) means myself. 'Maintain' (wei) means to say. It is not like the previous understanding; hence he says 'not so'. As for 'Why so? The Fangguang says that dharmas have no coming or going, no motion or turning': Dharmarakṣa previously translated the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā under the title Fangguang ('Emitting Light'), named so because the beginning of this sūtra extensively clarifies such matters as the Tathāgata emitting light. Since that sūtra says that dharmas have no coming or going, how could there be the alternation of birth and death? It further says they have no motion or turning; how could there be the successive shifting of cold and heat? It may also be explained broadly, without necessarily pairing them. It is also possible that the words 'Why so?' are Master Sengzhao's words, not the sūtra text. As for 'Investigating the assertion of non-movement, how could it mean casting aside movement to seek stillness?': 'casting aside' (shi) means abandoning. Examining the Fangguang jing making the statement of 'non-movement', it does not mean abandoning movement to separately discuss stillness; rather, one seeks stillness within moving dharmas, taking movement itself to be stillness. The phrase 'how could it mean casting aside' means not casting aside. From 'One must seek stillness within all movements' downwards, it re-examines the meaning above and is readily apparent.