大方廣佛華嚴經搜玄分齊通智方軌 3.32

3.32

第四不相捨離觀者，三門同上。不相捨離者，無他別時相離生也。三性分同上自因觀。初明所治者，因果異時計，謂因滅果後生，此即因不生果失。更有餘失，思之可解，是戒取見。二所依觀門者，以同時生果理為此觀體。此親疎二因俱同時，此約經文辨。觀相云何？無明有二種：一子時、二果時。彼二種時非是前後，依子取時名曰子時，依果取時名曰果時。其義云何？子者令行不斷。果者，此子時中所成行果，依此取時名曰果時。問：果因同時，即別體過；若前後生因，不生果過。答：我立因果異彼二失，由是同時異第二失、為是因果異第一失。此非逆觀，去情說也，但顯俗諦理、非第一義。所以知同時？故論云「有二種義故，緣事示現。」云何二義？一是因義、二是果義。緣事示現者，依緣二種義，示現二種時。如是餘因緣分自生，因二種義，緣事應知。又論主引《中論》偈云「眾緣所生法，是即不即因，亦復不異因，非斷亦非常」者，明因果兩義各非斷常，行是無明果，不即無明因；由是果故，不異無明因。因義，反前可知。非斷亦非常，行由是果非斷，是果無方非常，即此時中無明是因非斷，是果因故非常。此義論主削去外情作逆觀說，非順緣生俗諦門。所以得知？論主後自屬當經云「自生因緣觀義，如前說。」故知也。此約論辨。

Fourth, regarding the contemplation of non-abandonment and non-separation (avibinirbhāga): the three sections are the same as above. 'Non-abandonment and non-separation' means that they are not separated and produced at another, distinct time. The division of the three natures is the same as in the contemplation of self-cause above. First, clarifying that which is to be cured: this is the attachment to causes and effects occurring at different times, thinking that when the cause perishes, the effect subsequently arises; this entails the fault that the cause cannot produce an effect. There are further other faults, which can be understood upon reflection; this is the view of attachment to precepts and vows (śīlavrataparāmarśa). Second, the contemplation approach of that upon which it relies: this takes the principle of simultaneous arising of effect as the substance of this contemplation. Here, both the proximate and remote causes are simultaneous; this is explained in reliance upon the sūtra text. What are the characteristics of the contemplation? Ignorance has two aspects: first, the time of the seed (child); second, the time of the effect. Those two times are not prior and posterior: designated in reliance on the seed, it is named the time of the seed; designated in reliance on the effect, it is named the time of the effect. What does this mean? The 'seed' maintains the continuity of formations without interruption. The 'effect' is the effect of formations accomplished within this time of the seed; designated in reliance on this, it is named the time of the effect. Question: If effect and cause are simultaneous, then there is the fault of having different substances; if they arise in sequence, there is the fault of the cause failing to produce the effect. Answer: Our establishment of cause and effect avoids both faults: by being simultaneous, it avoids the second fault; by being cause and effect, it avoids the first fault. This is not the reverse contemplation spoken to remove emotional attachment; it merely reveals the principle of conventional truth, not the ultimate truth. How do we know they are simultaneous? Thus the treatise says: 'Because there are two meanings, they are manifested according to conditions and facts.' What are the two meanings? First is the meaning of cause; second is the meaning of effect. 'Manifested according to conditions and facts' means that in reliance on the conditions' two meanings, the two times are manifested. In like manner, the remaining divisions of dependent origination arise of themselves; through the two meanings of cause, the conditional facts should be known. Furthermore, the treatise master cites a verse from the Madhyamakaśāstra: 'Things produced from conditions / are neither identical with the cause / nor are they different from the cause; / they are neither annihilated nor eternal.' This clarifies that both meanings of cause and effect are each neither annihilated nor eternal: formations are the effect of ignorance and are not identical with the cause of ignorance; because they are the effect, they are not different from the cause of ignorance. As for the meaning of cause, it can be understood as the reverse of the former. 'Neither annihilated nor eternal': because formations are the effect, they are not annihilated; since the effect has no fixed location, it is not eternal. At this very time, ignorance is the cause, hence not annihilated; because it is the cause of an effect, it is not eternal. The treatise master removed external emotional attachments to state this as a reverse contemplation, not as the conventional-truth door of conformable conditioned arising. How is this known? The treatise master subsequently himself assigned it to the sūtra, stating: 'The meaning of the contemplation of self-arising dependent origination is as explained before.' Hence we know it. This is explained according to the treatise.