大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 33.57

33.57

疏「染淨雖虛」下，通難釋成。先通異難。謂有問言：染淨皆虛，豈非一耶？此約喻難。生死涅槃二俱虛寂，豈非一耶？此約法難。故此釋云：不相攝故。此通法喻，如所現像男不攝女故，生死不能攝涅槃故。以相就性，故說生死及與涅槃二俱空寂一際無差。以性就相，有染有淨。以有諍故說於生死，以無諍故說於涅槃。有煩惱時，非無煩惱，故就虛相而說異耳。欲令一者，要如來藏而以統之，是第三義。

Regarding the commentary's "Although defilement and purity are false" and following: resolving objections and elucidating the conclusion. First, resolving the objection regarding difference. That is, someone asks: defilement and purity are both false, so are they not one? This is an objection drawn from the simile. Saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are both false and tranquil, so are they not one? This is an objection drawn from the doctrine. Therefore, this explanation says: because they do not encompass one another. This applies to both doctrine and simile: just as among manifested images a male does not encompass a female, so saṃsāra cannot encompass nirvāṇa. Relating characteristics to nature, one therefore says that saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are both empty and tranquil, of a single limit without distinction. Relating nature to characteristics, there is defilement and there is purity. Because there is conflict, one speaks of saṃsāra; because there is no conflict, one speaks of nirvāṇa. When there are afflictions, it is not that there are no afflictions; therefore, one speaks of difference with respect to false characteristics. If one wishes to make them one, it requires the tathāgatagarbha to unify them, which is the third meaning.