大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 75.28

75.28

疏「四以所攝歸本之末」等者，此句亦合前二句相奪以成此句，謂以即體空之差別與即隨緣之不變相奪故不異。然同用前二句而為懸隔，第三句用第一句，取即不變之隨緣，故本成末。今第四句用初句，取即隨緣之不變，即本奪末也。但顛倒而已。第三句用第二句，取即差別之體空，故末成本。今第四句用第三句，取即體空之差別，末奪於本也。亦但倒耳。故義懸隔。言「所攝歸本之末」者，即體空之差別也，即第二句。言「所攝隨末之本」者，即隨緣之不變也，即第一句。由隨緣即不變，故奪差別，令體空則末寂也。由體空即差別，故奪不變，令隨緣故本寂也。以全本為末，故本便隱；全末為本，故末便亡也。是則真如隨緣成眾生，未曾失於真體，故令眾生非眾生也。眾生體空即法身時，未曾無眾生，故法身非法身也。故二雙絕。二既互絕，則真妄平等，無可異也。

Regarding the commentary's statement, "Fourth, taking the branch that is subsumed and returned to the root" and so forth: this proposition also combines the preceding two propositions through mutual displacement to form this proposition; that is, non-difference through the mutual displacement between differentiation identical to emptiness of essence and the unchanging identical to concordance with conditions. Although the preceding two propositions are equally used, their meanings are widely divergent. The third proposition uses the first proposition, taking concordance with conditions identical to being unchanging, so that the root accomplishes the branch. Now the fourth proposition uses the initial proposition, taking the unchanging identical to concordance with conditions, which is the root displacing the branch. It is merely an inversion. The third proposition uses the second proposition, taking the emptiness of essence identical to differentiation, so that the branch accomplishes the root. Now the fourth proposition uses the [second] proposition, taking the differentiation identical to emptiness of essence, so that the branch displaces the root. This is also merely an inversion. Thus their meanings are widely divergent. The phrase "the branch that is subsumed and returned to the root" refers to the differentiation identical to emptiness of essence, which is the second proposition. The phrase "the root that is subsumed and follows the branch" refers to the unchanging identical to concordance with conditions, which is the first proposition. Because concordance with conditions is precisely unchanging, it displaces differentiation, rendering essence empty, so that the branch is quiescent. Because emptiness of essence is precisely differentiation, it displaces the unchanging, causing concordance with conditions, so that the root is quiescent. Since the root in its entirety becomes the branch, the root is concealed; since the branch in its entirety becomes the root, the branch is annihilated. Thus, when tathatā concords with conditions to form sentient beings, it never loses its true essence; hence it causes sentient beings to be non-sentient beings. When sentient beings in their emptiness of essence are precisely the dharmakāya, there has never been an absence of sentient beings; hence the dharmakāya is non-dharmakāya. Therefore both are doubly extinguished. Since both mutually extinguish each other, true and false are equal, with nothing to differentiate them.