大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 75.32

75.32

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?