肇論新疏 3.204

3.204

經即羅什所譯《仁王》也。紛繞，煩惱也，亦業也。篤患，生死也。有謂三有，有為、有漏故。絕有下，謂欲引出有為，則無為第一。此意佛說無為，令群生息有為之患爾。借無下，但假借無為之名，以引著有之物令悟非有。故《放光》云：「若無有為，亦無無為」等，非謂非有是斷無之無，恐儒老之流計有無遍攝一切，謂涅槃亦無之所攝，曲引佛經有為無為以為類例，涅槃既是無為，亦合無攝故。合無攝故，設此難以揀之。一揀涅槃非有無攝、二揀無為之無，非二家所計有無之無。

The sūtra refers to the Benevolent Kings [Sūtra] translated by Kumārajīva. "Tangled confusion" refers to afflictions, and also to karma. "Grave affliction" refers to saṃsāra. "Being" refers to the three realms of existence, because they are conditioned and tainted. From "extirpating being" downward, it means that if one wishes to lead [beings] out of the conditioned, the unconditioned is foremost. The meaning is that the Buddha spoke of the unconditioned merely to cause the multitude of beings to cease the affliction of the conditioned. From "borrowing non-being" downward, he merely temporarily borrowed the name "unconditioned" to guide beings attached to being to awaken to non-being. Therefore the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra (Fangguang) states: "If there were no conditioned, there would also be no unconditioned," and so forth; it does not mean that non-being is the non-being of annihilative emptiness. Fearing that followers of the Confucians and Laozi would calculate that being and non-being universally subsume all things, asserting that nirvāṇa is also subsumed under non-being, tortuously quoting the Buddhist scriptures' conditioned and unconditioned as analogous cases, [arguing that] since nirvāṇa is unconditioned, it should also be subsumed under non-being. Because [they claim] it should be subsumed under non-being, this objection is raised to distinguish it. First, it distinguishes that nirvāṇa is not subsumed under being or non-being; second, it distinguishes that the "non-being" of the unconditioned is not the "non-being" of being and non-being calculated by the two schools.