華嚴經明法品內立三寶章 2.37

2.37

3. The gate of mutual identity and non-identity: either all is identical to the one. This has two gates: (1) In terms of nature: as the sūtra says, 'If a person wishes to accomplish Buddhahood, let them not destroy craving; all phenomena are identical to craving; knowing this, one immediately accomplishes Buddhahood.' The intention of this sūtra is that craving is identical to having no nature, hence it cannot be destroyed. That all phenomena are identical to craving means they are identical to the principle of craving's lack of intrinsic nature. If it were not so, how could craving be the essence of all phenomena? Therefore, one should know that it mentions the name 'craving' while taking the reality of craving. (2) In terms of phenomena: within this there are two, beginning and culmination. 'Beginning' means that the dharmadhātu does not exist separately; rather, it takes all phenomena as identical to the dharmadhātu to be the dharmadhātu; a single phenomenon does not exist separately; rather, it takes the dharmadhātu as identical to a single phenomenon to be a single phenomenon. Therefore, all phenomena are identical to a single phenomenon. 'Culmination' means that since the dharmadhātu's being entirely identical to a single phenomenon is taken to be a single phenomenon, therefore this one is identical to all, and all phenomena are identical to the one. Question: If in terms of the nature of principle, since one and many are both transcended, then there is nothing to identify with; if in terms of phenomenal characteristics, persons and phenomena diverge from each other, how can there be identification? If in terms of phenomena there is identification, that destroys the phenomena, which contradicts the conventional; if in terms of principle there is identification, that contradicts the ultimate. If one mentions phenomena while taking principle, then it does not differ from the previous gate—how could it be further distinguished? Answer: It is precisely because of these two meanings that mutual identification is possible. Why? If it were phenomena without principle, it could not be identified; if it were principle without phenomena, there would be nothing to identify. Now, because principle and phenomena are non-dual yet dual—that is, principle that is identical to phenomena is only then true principle, so that phenomena wholly identify with one another while true principle remains serene; and phenomena that are identical to principle are only then illusory phenomena, so that they constantly identify with one another while the myriad images proliferate—truly because principle and phenomena identify with each other yet are not one, therefore the entirety of one and many mutually identify without commingling. Ponder this free of deluded sentiment. If you cling to words seeking understanding based on vague semblances, you will struggle all day without seeing it. Or, all is not identical to the one: that is, because their entire essences identify with each other without commingling, and without destroying the original phenomena—just as form is identical to emptiness without destroying form and so forth—understand this by analogy. Or, both: because the previous two meanings are completely and unobstructedly endowed. Or, neither: because the previous two meanings mutually delimit and displace each other, transcending the two characteristics, there is neither identity nor non-identity, yet this phenomenon remains. Just as all being identical to one has these four propositions, the four propositions of one being identical to all should be considered by analogy. The above three levels merge into a single domain, perfectly luminous and possessing all virtues, unobstructed and sovereign; this is called the gate of the dependent origination of the dharmadhātu. Reflect on it and you will know.