[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736) › 75.32 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 75.32 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 75.32 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [75.32](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.75.32) 疏「八以極相害俱泯而不泯」等者，即亦合五六二句。取不泯不存明不一，俱泯不泯即第六句，俱存不存即第五句。何者？以前第五相違是存，第六相害是泯。然存上有不存之義，泯上有不泯之義。若唯泯無不泯，則色空俱亡，無可相即，以不泯故，雖相即而色空歷然。若唯存無不存，則色空各有定性，不得相即；由有不存，故雖歷然而得相即。以體虛故，是以第七但合五六之存泯，今第八門乃合五六之不存不泯，故七八二門雖同合五六，二義不同。言「此是成壞不一」者，不存是壞，不泯是成。第九門非一，不是非異，故二門不一。第十門，總融前八，稱真法界，故亦非異。既無二理，豈一異有殊？ > Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Eighth, because through extreme mutual harm both are annihilated yet not annihilated," and so forth: this also combines the fifth and sixth phrases. Taking non-annihilation and non-preservation to clarify non-identity: both being annihilated yet not annihilated corresponds to the sixth phrase; both being preserved yet not preserved corresponds to the fifth phrase. Why is this? Because previously the fifth, mutual contradiction, was preservation, and the sixth, mutual harm, was annihilation. However, within preservation there is the meaning of non-preservation, and within annihilation there is the meaning of non-annihilation. If there were only annihilation without non-annihilation, then form and emptiness would both perish and there would be nothing to be mutually identical; because there is non-annihilation, although they are mutually identical, form and emptiness remain distinctly evident. If there were only preservation without non-preservation, then form and emptiness would each possess a fixed nature and could not be mutually identical; because there is non-preservation, although they are distinctly evident, they can be mutually identical. This is because their essence is devoid of substance. Therefore, the seventh approach only combines the preservation and annihilation of the fifth and sixth, whereas this eighth approach combines the non-preservation and non-annihilation of the fifth and sixth; hence, although the seventh and eighth approaches both combine the fifth and sixth, their two meanings are different. The statement "this is the non-identity of integration and disintegration": non-preservation is disintegration, and non-annihilation is integration. The ninth approach is not-identical, not not-different; therefore these two approaches are not identical. The tenth approach totally fuses the previous eight, matching the true dharmadhātu, and therefore is also not-different. Since there are not two principles, how could identity and difference diverge? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 75.31](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.75.31) - [Next: 75.33](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.75.33) - [Up: 75](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.75) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.75.32) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.75.32](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.75.32) · Pramāṇa