大方廣佛華嚴經搜玄分齊通智方軌 3.33

3.33

五三道觀者，三者數，道者通生義，以煩惱業報及通生義為此觀體。三門同上。初所治者，對治因緣廢事計理執。謂計諸法通因緣理，即廢事執理失。故論云「若因緣生者，一切法俱生。」故得知也。問：如論文，此語屬後三際，云何從前以為所治？答：論主別有異意。科後八門半觀以為俗諦，明執是過，故從後說。論主用三道為攝過觀，即體是過，不可別有所治。今依經本，三道是德，故有所治，將在前論。所以知論主別有異意。如前依止一心觀分為兩門，豈是十番意也。亦有解者，作外人與論主成失。若作此釋，義轉難解。所以得知？疑云：若因緣生者一切法俱生。論答云：過去業有二種，一未作業、二已作業。只可未作者非一切生，已作者應一切生。為如是故，今成論主與外成失，屬前治也。又一因生諸法，如計宿作及自性等，分同此治，是戒取耳。二所依觀門者，對三性分，同上自因觀。因緣之道通生諸有，依煩惱道生諸有故，同在有流也。依業生諸有，六道不同、善惡有異。依報生諸法相續不斷，故得三有，成其事業諸相不同。此理事相應，理故法齊生，由事隔故不互相生。若但因緣理不藉事生者，即三有不成。此依經本辨。三釋文可知。依論辨之可知。

Fifth, regarding the contemplation of the three paths: 'three' is the number; 'path' means the sense of pervasive arising. It takes afflictions, karma, and retribution, along with the sense of pervasive arising, as the substance of this contemplation. The three sections are the same as above. First, that which is to be cured: this cures the attachment that clings to principle while abandoning phenomena in dependent origination. That is to say, clinging to the idea that all dharmas universally accord with the principle of dependent origination entails the error of abandoning phenomena and grasping at principle. Thus the treatise says: 'If things arise from dependent origination, then all dharmas would arise simultaneously.' Hence we know it. Question: According to the treatise text, these words belong to the subsequent three limits; why are they taken from before as that which is to be cured? Answer: The treatise master had another, different intention. He categorised the latter eight and a half doors of contemplation as conventional truth, clarifying that attachment is an error; therefore he spoke of it from behind. The treatise master used the three paths as a contemplation that subsumes errors; their substance itself being error, there cannot be a separate object to be cured. Now according to the sūtra text, the three paths are virtues, hence there is an object to be cured, which is discussed beforehand. This is how we know the treatise master had a different intention. Just as previously the contemplation relying upon the one mind was divided into two approaches, how could that be the intention of the ten rounds? There are also those who interpret it as an opponent raising a fault against the treatise master. If one makes such an explanation, the meaning turns out to be more difficult to understand. How is this known? The objection states: 'If things arise from dependent origination, all dharmas would arise simultaneously.' The treatise answers: 'Past karma is of two kinds: first, karma not yet performed; second, karma already performed.' It could only be that what is not yet performed does not all arise, but what is already performed ought to arise simultaneously. For this reason, it is now established that the treatise master points out a fault in the external opponent, which belongs to the previous cure. Furthermore, [the view that] a single cause produces all dharmas, such as clinging to past deeds or to primordial nature (prakṛti), partially shares in this cure; this is merely the view of attachment to precepts and vows. Second, the contemplation approach of that upon which it relies: with respect to the division of the three natures, it is the same as the contemplation of self-cause above. The path of dependent origination pervasively gives rise to all realms of existence: because it gives rise to all realms of existence in reliance on the path of afflictions, they share in the stream of existence. In reliance on karma, it gives rise to all realms of existence, wherein the six destinies differ and good and evil are distinct. In reliance on retribution, it gives rise to all dharmas in unbroken continuity; therefore the three realms of existence obtain, accomplishing their activities with their diverse characteristics. Here, principle and phenomena correspond: by principle, dharmas arise equally; because phenomena are separated, they do not give rise to one another. If there were only the principle of dependent origination without relying on phenomena to arise, then the three realms of existence would not be established. This is explained according to the sūtra text. Third, the explanation of the text can be understood. It can be understood according to the treatise.