大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 7.32

7.32

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.