大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 7.32

7.32

疏「又依涅槃為半滿」下，破後三教。然彼師之意，以真如有二分，具說二分為具分，唯說不變為一分。但明生空為半，具顯二空為滿。今難半滿乃有二義：一若約第二義已稱為滿，不合唯得一分。若滿中有一分義者，《涅槃》滿字亦唯一分，則亦未滿，故云不應復有一分之言。一分之言，意在第三教也。二有救言：《涅槃》但約二空論半滿，不約真如等者。則違《涅槃》，《涅槃》既云「空者所謂生死，不空者所謂大般涅槃。」何得言唯約二空而論半滿？是知二空猶是《涅槃》半字，雙照空不空方為滿耳。故彼經云「聲聞之人但見於空、不見不空，菩薩見空及與不空。」故疏云「豈彼不說妙有而訶空耶。」「故其所立」下，總非也。

From the commentary's phrase, 'Furthermore, relying on the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] to define the partial and complete,' down, it refutes the latter three teachings. That master's intention was that tathatā has two parts: explaining both parts completely is the complete part, whereas explaining only the unchanging is one part. Clarifying only the emptiness of persons is the partial, whereas fully revealing the two emptinesses is the complete. Now we challenge that 'partial and complete' has two meanings: First, if according to the second meaning it is already called 'complete,' it should not be that it obtains only one part. If within the complete there is the meaning of 'one part,' then the word 'complete' in the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] would also be merely one part and thus not yet complete; hence it is said that there should not again be the phrase 'one part.' The phrase 'one part' was intended for the third teaching. Second, if there is a defense saying: 'The Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] only discusses partial and complete in terms of the two emptinesses, not in terms of tathatā and the like'—then this contradicts the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]. Since the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] states, 'The empty refers to saṃsāra, and the non-empty refers to mahāparinirvāṇa,' how could one say that it discusses partial and complete solely in terms of the two emptinesses? Thus we know that the two emptinesses are still the 'partial letter' of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], and only illuminating both the empty and the non-empty constitutes the 'complete.' Hence that sūtra states: 'Śrāvakas only see the empty and do not see the non-empty; bodhisattvas see both the empty and the non-empty.' Therefore the commentary states: 'Could it be that that [sūtra] does not speak of wondrous existence and refutes emptiness?' From 'Therefore what he established' down, it concludes with a general rejection.