大方廣佛華嚴經搜玄分齊通智方軌 3.33

3.33

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.