肇論新疏 3.360

3.360

初二句，責其動靜異見。菩薩下，引經顯理。即《名經》略云：「上方香積世界菩薩欲還本國，向佛求法。佛言：『有盡無盡解脫法門，汝等當學（云云）。如菩薩者，不盡有為、不住無為。』」彼《疏》解云：「有為雖偽，捨之而大業不成；無為雖實，住之而慧心不明。」即其事者，同前動寂無礙。若有無異見，豈順經義？既云平等，則盡與不盡其行一也。

The first two lines reproach their differentiated view of motion and stillness. From 'That the bodhisattva' onward cites scripture to reveal principle. That is, the Ming jing briefly says: 'The bodhisattvas of the fragrant accumulation world above, wishing to return to their original land, requested the Dharma from the Buddha. The Buddha said: "There is the liberation-gate of the exhaustible and inexhaustible, which you should learn (and so forth). As for bodhisattvas, they do not exhaust the conditioned and do not abide in the unconditioned."' That Commentary explains: 'Though the conditioned is false, abandoning it leaves the great undertaking unaccomplished; though the unconditioned is real, abiding in it leaves the mind of wisdom unilluminated.' 'Precisely this matter' is identical to the earlier non-obstruction of motion and stillness. If one holds a differentiated view of being and non-being, how could that accord with the scriptural meaning? Since it is called 'equal', the exhaustible and the inexhaustible are one in their practice.