大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 37.39

37.39

As for the commentary's phrase “furthermore, because the two are mutually dependent, both are empty,” and so forth: previously, based on causes and conditions, designations were established dependent on the other; hence there was no real actuality, and the two essences were not interfused. Now it clarifies their dual interfusion, which has three aspects: first, mutual dependence; second, mutual identity; third, mutual negation. Now to address the first: that through mutual dependence both are empty is the gateway of mutual dependence. That is to say, only because of nirvāṇa is saṃsāra spoken of, and it is necessary to rely on saṃsāra to speak of nirvāṇa; it is like high and low giving shape to each other—if there were no high, there would be no low; if one departs from nirvāṇa, saṃsāra does not persist; if one departs from saṃsāra, nirvāṇa is not established. Hence both are empty. Next, the statement that “because the two mutually negate each other, both are quiescent” has two meanings: First, the gateway of mutual identity: the real nature of saṃsāra is precisely nirvāṇa, and then the characteristic of nirvāṇa is provisionally spoken of as saṃsāra, just as with waves and water, raising one completely encompasses the other; therefore, saṃsāra is precisely nirvāṇa, and nirvāṇa is precisely saṃsāra. Second, because of mutual identity, they then mutually negate each other: if saṃsāra is precisely nirvāṇa, then there is no saṃsāra; if nirvāṇa is precisely saṃsāra, then there is no nirvāṇa. Therefore, nirvāṇa is not quiescent, and saṃsāra is also not clamorous; hence both are quiescent.