肇論新疏 2.210

2.210

Here all four propositions are present, but the text is hidden and difficult to see; now they are fully presented to leave no remaining doubt. The first phrase follows the preceding, jointly setting forth mind and object as the substantial entities on which stillness, function, identity, and difference rely. Mind and object are dharmas; stillness and function are principles; identity and difference merely evaluate stillness and function. Speaking of mind and object: approaching wisdom as tathatā is the object; approaching tathatā as wisdom is the mind. Non-dual yet dual, substance and function are ever distinct; dual yet non-dual, mind and object are one contemplation. The Parīṇāmanā chapter of the Avataṃsaka says: "There has never been wisdom outside of tathatā that can realize tathatā, nor has there been tathatā outside of wisdom that is realized by wisdom." Now in this treatise, speaking of stillness refers to tathatā; speaking of function refers to wisdom. Precisely because tathatā and wisdom share the same source, and substance and function are a single unity, identity and difference are freely unhindered. The four propositions fully manifest substance and function: non-difference is called identity; non-oneness is called difference; the main meaning is already understood. From "spoken of in terms of function" onward, the first proposition, "identical yet distinct," means arising into function based on substance, where function differs from substance. Following below, the explanation says, "because they are distinct, they do not lose the efficacy of illumination." From "spoken of in terms of stillness" onward, the second proposition, "distinct yet identical," means gathering function back into substance, where substance and function are one. Following below, the explanation says, "because they are identical, there is no mind toward this or that." "This or that" refers to mind and object. From "Therefore" onward, the third, both-clause, gathers both of the previous two to form this third. "Therefore, discerning identity" takes up the previous identity phrase, fully meaning: therefore, discerning what is distinct yet identical, because it is merely identical in difference. Saying "distinct yet identical" means being identical precisely within difference. "Discerning difference" takes up the initial difference phrase, which can be understood in line with the above, also being identical yet distinct; the two phrases are simultaneous. From "Thus they" onward, the fourth, neither-clause, succeeds the preceding third and is formed: because it is identical in difference it is not identical, and because it is different in identity it is not different. Fully stated, they cannot be made to be different yet identical, nor identical yet distinct. Below, in distinguishing stillness and function separately, only the first two phrases are recounted, because the latter two phrases are produced from the former.