大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 32.18

32.18

疏「又法若即性，性常應常」者，然常無常非即非離，此以不即難其大即。「性若即法，法滅應滅」者，謂水若即波，波滅水滅。今但波滅而水不滅，則法若滅時而性不滅，即非全即也。故《大品》中「佛問須菩提：『心若生時，為即性不？』答言：『即性。』『此心滅不？』答云：『生法必滅。』佛言：『真性滅不？』答云：『不滅。』佛言：『此處可思議不？』答云：『不可思議。』」即斯義矣。

As for the commentary's statement, "Furthermore, if phenomena were identical to nature, the permanence of the nature would entail [phenomena] being permanent": however, permanence and impermanence are neither identical nor separate; this uses non-identity to challenge extreme identity. As for "if nature were identical to phenomena, the cessation of phenomena would entail [the nature] ceasing": this means that if water were identical to waves, the cessation of waves would mean the cessation of water. Now, only the waves cease while the water does not cease; thus, when phenomena cease, the nature does not cease, meaning they are not entirely identical. Hence, in the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā, "The Buddha asked Subhūti: 'When mind arises, is it identical to the nature or not?' He answered: 'It is identical to the nature.' 'Does this mind cease or not?' He answered: 'Arisen phenomena must cease.' The Buddha said: 'Does the true nature cease or not?' He answered: 'It does not cease.' The Buddha said: 'Is this point conceivable or not?' He answered: 'It is inconceivable.'" This is precisely that meaning.