大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 75.28

75.28

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.