大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 33.59

33.59

疏「三像不異鏡是非異」者，謂像本是異，鏡本是一，今像同鏡，故非異也。故釋云：鏡外無像故同鏡，一異相便無。生死本異，如來藏本一。今生死即如來藏，故生死非異，以如來藏外無生死故。疏「鏡不異像是非一義」者，鏡本是一，像本非一，今鏡同像，故非一也。「正現像時去像亦失鏡」者，釋成上義。謂去像失鏡，明鏡同像。言同像者，同像非一，非是約鏡與像一也。思之。如來藏本是一，生死非一，今如來藏全體為生死，故同生死之萬差。正成生死時，若去生死，即無如來藏。此明如來藏同生死之差，非約與生死一，故是非一義也。第四「亦一亦異門」者，但約不壞性相，則一異歷然耳。四門一揆，則一異無礙、染淨相融，方為事事無礙之鏡像也。

Regarding the commentary's "Third, that the reflection is not different from the mirror is the meaning of non-difference": the reflection is originally different, and the mirror is originally one; now that the reflection is identical with the mirror, it is therefore non-different. Hence it explains: because outside the mirror there is no reflection, it is identical with the mirror, and the characteristics of unity and difference then vanish. Saṃsāra is originally different, and the tathāgatagarbha is originally one. Now saṃsāra is identical with the tathāgatagarbha, so saṃsāra is non-different, because outside the tathāgatagarbha there is no saṃsāra. Regarding the commentary's "the mirror is not different from the reflection is the meaning of non-unity": the mirror is originally one, and the reflections are originally not one; now that the mirror is identical with the reflections, it is therefore not one. "At the very time of manifesting reflections, if one removes the reflections, one also loses the mirror": this explains and establishes the above meaning. That is, removing reflections loses the mirror, clarifying that the mirror is identical with reflections. Saying "identical with reflections" means identical with the reflections' non-unity, not that it concerns the mirror and reflections being one. Contemplate this. The tathāgatagarbha is originally one, and saṃsāra is not one; now the tathāgatagarbha in its entire essence constitutes saṃsāra, and so is identical with the myriad distinctions of saṃsāra. At the very time it constitutes saṃsāra, if one removes saṃsāra, there is then no tathāgatagarbha. This clarifies that the tathāgatagarbha is identical with the distinctions of saṃsāra, not that it is one with saṃsāra; hence it is the meaning of non-unity. As for the fourth, "the approach of both unity and difference": it merely regards not destroying nature and characteristics, so unity and difference are clearly distinct. When the four approaches are brought into alignment, then unity and difference are unobstructed, and defilement and purity interfuse, only then becoming the mirror and reflections of phenomenon-and-phenomenon non-obstruction.