大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 13.18

13.18

疏「故眾生心中佛」下，顯雙存相。謂雖互相攝，不妨說聽宛然。在文似隱，義極分明。請以喻況，略舉二喻：一者如一明鏡，師弟同對說聽，以師取之即是師鏡，弟子取之是弟子鏡。鏡喻一心，師弟喻於生佛，是謂弟子鏡中和尚，為和尚鏡中弟子說法，和尚鏡中弟子，聽弟子鏡中和尚說法。諸有智者，請詳斯喻。雖設此喻，猶恐未曉。又如水乳和同一處，而互為能和所和。且順說聽，以能和為說，所和為聽。且將水喻於佛，乳喻眾生。應言乳中之水，和水中之乳，乳之與水雖同一味，能所宛然。雖能所宛然，而互相在，相遍相攝，思以準之。更消疏文。「眾生心中佛」者，此明眾生稱性普周，而佛不壞相，在眾生心內。言「為佛心中眾生說法」者，此明佛心稱性普周，而眾生不壞相，在佛心內也。但明能說之佛，即是眾生心中佛。但語聽法眾生，即是佛心中眾生。下對反上，更無別理，但說聽之異耳。

Regarding the commentary's "Therefore the Buddha within the minds of sentient beings" and so forth: this reveals the characteristic of both being maintained. That is, although they mutually subsume each other, this does not impede the speaker and listener remaining distinct. In the text it seems obscure, but the meaning is extremely clear. Please allow me to illustrate with analogies, briefly presenting two: First, it is like a bright mirror before which a master and a disciple together speak and listen; viewed from the master's perspective, it is the master's mirror; viewed from the disciple's perspective, it is the disciple's mirror. The mirror is an analogy for the one mind; master and disciple are analogies for sentient beings and the Buddha. This means that the preceptor in the disciple's mirror speaks the Dharma for the disciple in the preceptor's mirror, and the disciple in the preceptor's mirror listens to the preceptor in the disciple's mirror speaking the Dharma. May the wise carefully examine this analogy! Although this analogy has been presented, I still fear it may not be understood. Again, it is like water and milk blended together in the same place, yet mutually acting as that which blends and that which is blended. Let us provisionally accord with speaking and listening, taking that which blends as speaking and that which is blended as listening. Let us provisionally analogize water to the Buddha and milk to sentient beings. One should say: the water within the milk blends with the milk within the water; although milk and water share the same flavor, the agent and object are distinct. Although agent and object are distinct, they mutually reside within each other, mutually pervading and mutually subsuming; contemplate and apply this accordingly. Let us further analyze the commentary's text. "The Buddha within the minds of sentient beings": this clarifies that sentient beings accord with the nature and universally pervade, while the Buddha does not destroy his characteristics, residing within the minds of sentient beings. As for "speaks the Dharma for sentient beings within the Buddha's mind": this clarifies that the Buddha's mind accords with the nature and universally pervades, while sentient beings do not destroy their characteristics, residing within the Buddha's mind. It merely clarifies that the Buddha who is capable of speaking is precisely the Buddha within the minds of sentient beings. When speaking of the sentient beings who listen to the Dharma, they are precisely the sentient beings within the Buddha's mind. The matching below inverts the above; there is no other principle, merely the difference between speaking and listening.