大方廣佛華嚴經搜玄分齊通智方軌 3.39

3.39

二依論分別者，有三：一厭離有為、二大悲隨順、三一切相智。初厭離有為者，解則為順、行則為逆。解中以三空相為順，大分為三：一成答相、二第一義諦、三世諦差別為知。世無人成，世有為過，故須第一。既知過已，未知趣何理，故有第二。雖知所入法，未知依何而得，故舉俗諦辨所依觀門。故論云「隨順觀世諦，即入第一義。」初釋文如前。問：此相即俗諦，何須第三更明俗諦？答：此辨俗諦，為取過失。二第一義諦，釋得脫所以。就彼因緣觀第一義，得脫因緣，此取依止觀中上半門也。世諦觀者，世即時也，諦者時中法實，此合經中後八門半為六門觀，初半為一、取二為一、次三各一、後三為一。初名是染染依止觀，染者能依也，依止者所依也。此六門中，初一門明染依止、次二建立染相、次一就染彰過、次二正觀防非、後一辨觀分齊。又云何染？故明染相。染何所依？依第一義。何故說依？妄法依真，為欲就之求真故也。二言因觀者，觀染所因。問：論主合本二觀為一因觀，經本初為自因，論主云他因；經本不相捨離，論主云自因。此義云何？答：經主言自簡異外道。論言他者，就四緣內簡取增上緣，成十二因緣義。準論主意消彼經文，即舉親別疎。取其疎緣不取親者，為不順十二因緣故也。云何不順？十二支中但行有二支，報因義顯，餘者略而不具。又別取增上緣故簡之，所以名疎緣。作他因者為增上緣，對親因為疎、望增上自果為親，今對親因說彼增上，故說他因亦可。反之取其他也。經名不相捨離，如前觀釋，亦通親疎。論言自因者，增上緣中取親因緣，即互為因，等由互為因通諸支故。三攝過觀者，攝十二緣以為三道觀察，唯是苦集過也。四護過者，護彼凡夫邪見過也。五不厭厭者，防離二乘慢心過也。微細之苦，二乘不厭，菩薩能厭，名不厭厭。六深觀者，觀行窮深因緣之理，妙過情趣，故名為深。觀相云何？論主分本三觀以為四法趣其深理：一非他作，自因生故，即成自因具有勝力，離無因計。二非自作，緣生故，即顯疎緣具有勝力，即離單因生果不藉緣失。此二種義，離自性執，由順俗諦，見心不息。問：何故不言各有少力共成多力？答：若少，多則不成。三非二作，但隨順生，此則去前見。因緣相隨，順生者有無不可取，為隨有故不可無，隨順有故非自有。復隨順有非定從因生，故離有無不可取也。四非無因作。隨順有故，即離意地，謂無分別。其法如上十平等攝。此即深觀之妙趣也。問：此觀為是逆觀？為是順觀？答：此通逆順。隨順觀世諦即順也，即入第一義諦故逆也。此觀通治諸惑，不別明所治。以一緣起無生唯識為此觀體。問：如上諸義並是順觀，逆觀云何？答：真俗二諦非分別知，但對見情故分二相。欲知逆順者，唯越見情，即逆順相應。云何作方便？如諸觀門互相形奪，即體其理，得滅諸見。餘義可知。

Second, distinguishing according to the commentary (Daśabhūmivyākhyāna), there are three [aspects]: first, revulsion toward the conditioned; second, conformity through great compassion; third, the knowledge of all aspects. Regarding the first, revulsion toward the conditioned: in understanding it is forward, while in practice it is reverse. Within understanding, taking the three aspects of emptiness as forward, it is broadly divided into three: first, the aspect of answering to completion; second, the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya); and third, distinguishing the conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya) so as to know. Because no person accomplishes [anything in] the world, and worldly conditioned phenomena are faulty, the first is required. Once faults are known, not yet knowing what principle to tend toward, the second is therefore present. Although one knows the Dharma to be entered, not knowing what it relies upon to be attained, the conventional truth is therefore adduced to distinguish the contemplated gate upon which one relies. Hence the commentary states: "Conformably contemplating the conventional truth, one immediately enters the ultimate truth." The first explanation of the text is as before. Question: If this characteristic is precisely the conventional truth, why does the third need to clarify the conventional truth further? Answer: Here, clarifying the conventional truth is for apprehending faults. The second, the ultimate truth, explains the reason for attaining liberation. Contemplating the ultimate truth with respect to those causes and conditions, one attains liberation from causes and conditions; this takes the first half of the gate in the contemplation of reliance. As for the contemplation of the conventional truth: 'world' means time, and 'truth' means the reality of phenomena within time; this combines the latter eight and a half gates of the sūtra into a contemplation of six gates: the first half makes one; taking two makes one; the next three make one each; the last three make one. The first is named the contemplation of reliance of defilement: 'defilement' is that which relies, and 'reliance' is that which is relied upon. Among these six gates, the first gate clarifies the reliance of defilement; the next two establish the characteristics of defilement; the next one demonstrates faults with respect to defilement; the next two are the correct contemplation preventing error; the last one distinguishes the scope of the contemplation. Furthermore, why is it defilement? Thus it clarifies the characteristics of defilement. What does defilement rely on? It relies on the ultimate truth. Why is it said to rely? False phenomena rely on the real, because one wishes to seek the real with respect to them. The second is called the contemplation of cause, which contemplates the cause of defilement. Question: The author of the commentary combines the two original contemplations into a single contemplation of cause; the sūtra text originally takes the first as self-cause, while the author of the commentary calls it other-cause; the sūtra text states "not abandoning one another," while the author of the commentary calls it self-cause. What does this mean? Answer: The master of the sūtra speaks of 'self' to differentiate from non-Buddhists. When the commentary speaks of 'other,' within the four conditions it selects the predominant condition (adhipati-pratyaya) to establish the meaning of the twelve links of dependent origination. Following the intent of the author of the commentary to interpret that sūtra text, it adduces the intimate to distinguish the remote. Taking its remote condition and not taking the intimate one is because it does not conform to the twelve links of dependent origination. How does it not conform? Among the twelve links, only the two links of conditioning factors and existence clearly exhibit the meaning of karmic cause; the others are abbreviated and incomplete. Furthermore, separately taking the predominant condition, it differentiates it, which is why it is called a remote condition. Making it an other-cause is because the predominant condition is remote with respect to the intimate cause, but intimate with respect to the predominant condition's own result; here, speaking of that predominant condition in relation to the intimate cause, it is therefore called an other-cause, or conversely, one may take its otherness. The sūtra names it "not abandoning one another," which, as explained in the preceding contemplation, also applies to both the intimate and the remote. When the commentary speaks of self-cause, taking the intimate cause-and-condition within the predominant condition means they are mutually causes, precisely because being mutually causes pervades all the links. The third, the contemplation of subsuming faults, subsumes the twelve links into the three paths to contemplate and observe them, which are solely the faults of suffering and origination. The fourth, guarding against faults, guards against the faults of ordinary beings' wrong views. The fifth, revulsion through non-revulsion, prevents and departs from the faults of the two vehicles' conceit. Subtle suffering is not loathed by the two vehicles, but can be loathed by bodhisattvas; hence it is called revulsion through non-revulsion. The sixth, profound contemplation: contemplative practice exhaustively investigates the profound principle of causes and conditions, wonderfully surpassing conceptual thought; hence it is called profound. What are the characteristics of the contemplation? The author of the commentary divides the three original contemplations into four dharmas to tend toward its profound principle: First, it is not made by another, because it is produced from its own causes; this establishes that self-causes possess superior power, departing from the conception of causelessness. Second, it is not made by oneself, because it is produced from conditions; this reveals that remote conditions possess superior power, departing from the fault of a single cause producing a result without relying on conditions. These two meanings depart from attachment to intrinsic nature; because one conforms to conventional truth, the perceiving mind does not cease. Question: Why not say that each possesses minor power to jointly constitute major power? Answer: If minor, the major is not constituted. Third, it is not made by both, but merely produced in conformity; this eliminates the previous views. Causes and conditions follow one another; as for what is produced in conformity, existence and non-existence cannot be grasped: because it follows existence, it cannot be non-existent; because it conforms to existence, it is not self-existent. Furthermore, conforming to existence, it is not definitely produced from a cause; hence it departs from existence and non-existence and cannot be grasped. Fourth, it is not made without a cause. Because it conforms to existence, one immediately departs from the mental stage, meaning non-discrimination. Its dharmas are subsumed under the ten equalities as above. This is precisely the wonderful purport of the profound contemplation. Question: Is this contemplation a reverse contemplation or a forward contemplation? Answer: This applies to both reverse and forward. Conformably contemplating the conventional truth is forward; immediately entering the ultimate truth is therefore reverse. This contemplation universally cures all afflictions, without separately clarifying that which is cured. It takes the unproduced consciousness-only of a single dependent origination as the substance of this contemplation. Question: The various meanings above are all forward contemplation; what is the reverse contemplation? Answer: The two truths of real and conventional are not known through conceptual discrimination; but opposite to habitual views, two aspects are differentiated. If one wishes to know reverse and forward: solely transcending habitual views, reverse and forward then correspond. How does one apply expedient means? Just as the various gates of contemplation mutually define and eliminate, one directly embodies their principle and can extinguish all views. The remaining points can be known [from this].