肇論新疏 3.232

3.232

同我者，心境無異，亦理事冥同。非復有無者，有無之事泯絕也。異我下，心境理事兩殊，不能會證冥同也。詳此二句，唯同唯異皆非，亦同亦異方離諸過。出在兩成。何者？由異故事理相違，所以不在，今若唯同，非復有無，則不在之旨不成。由同故事理相即，所以不出，今若唯異，乖於會通，不出之旨不成。以涅槃是理、有無屬事，故相躡各有二過。可知。

"Identical with me" means mind and object are not distinct, and principle and phenomena are darkly identical. "No longer being or non-being" means the matters of being and non-being are completely extinguished. From "if different from me" downward, mind and object, principle and phenomena, are both disparate, unable to synthetically realize dark identity. Examining these two lines, being solely identical or solely different are both wrong; only when both identical and different are all faults avoided. Both transcending and abiding are established. Why so? Because of difference, principle and phenomena conflict with each other, which is why it does not abide; now if it were solely identical, there being no longer being or non-being, then the purport of not abiding would not be established. Because of identity, principle and phenomena are mutually identical, which is why it does not transcend; now if it were solely different, running contrary to penetrative synthesis, the purport of not transcending would not be established. Because nirvāṇa is principle and being and non-being pertain to phenomena, tracing each step, each possesses two faults. This can be known.