大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 32.18

32.18

As for the commentary's statement, "Furthermore, if phenomena were identical to nature, the permanence of the nature would entail [phenomena] being permanent": however, permanence and impermanence are neither identical nor separate; this uses non-identity to challenge extreme identity. As for "if nature were identical to phenomena, the cessation of phenomena would entail [the nature] ceasing": this means that if water were identical to waves, the cessation of waves would mean the cessation of water. Now, only the waves cease while the water does not cease; thus, when phenomena cease, the nature does not cease, meaning they are not entirely identical. Hence, in the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā, "The Buddha asked Subhūti: 'When mind arises, is it identical to the nature or not?' He answered: 'It is identical to the nature.' 'Does this mind cease or not?' He answered: 'Arisen phenomena must cease.' The Buddha said: 'Does the true nature cease or not?' He answered: 'It does not cease.' The Buddha said: 'Is this point conceivable or not?' He answered: 'It is inconceivable.'" This is precisely that meaning.