[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [華嚴經探玄記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733) › 13.41 # 華嚴經探玄記 13.41 華嚴經探玄記 13.41 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [13.41](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.13.41) 二約厭離有為者，論名護過觀，謂外人與此緣生道理出三種過：一一切身一時生者，列過名。何以故者，外人自徵，立過所以。無異因者，釋立過相。以無我異因，何為不得五道之身一時並生？二中列名，徵立可知。無作者故者，釋立過相。若無我作業，誰受來報？三中列徵可知。釋中既無有我，誰持是業令使至果？是故應失。前不受報，據前望後說。此中失業，據後望前說。「此三」下總牒彰護。謂過現因，別名為異因。以此答前三種難，故名為答。亦通取下句。現未果異，由彼異因，云何得有一時生過？又差別因得差別報，云何乃言有不受報？差別之報由異因生，云何得有失業之過？下釋文中，先釋過去內。無明緣行是見過去者，牒舉經文。下釋中二句：初明過因能作現、二現果由過因。說現識等，以為當來。此中但說過去因則足，何須復說現為其當？欲以因果相屬防三過故。「則是見」下釋已總結過去是因義。二釋現在中，言識乃至受見現在者，牒經文。釋中二句：初明現果由過因、二「復能」下明過因得現果，現在是彼過去之未來，故云得未來果。三「愛取」下釋未來中，先牒文。言復有生者，釋從愛取等起有生死，名有生也。問：前釋過現皆二世相對，今解未來何故不然？答：以彼過現，經中自分為兩也，故須相屬以成護過。經中自說愛取有三，從果為未來，不假論主相屬，故不論也。言一往定者，結別前文。以上來所明是一，分三世名一往。理數如是，稱之為定。下釋展轉三世相生無盡，故云復有後世生轉故也。「此說何義」下釋前護過有三義：一汎明業不得果、二舉經明得、三雙結得不。前中，先總舉，由三義故，令過去業不能得報。一或有未作者，就過去求愛取有等，爾時未作故，於現在不得生老死果。問：觀此文意，似說過去無明未作業行，何因乃云愛等未作？答：若無明未作業，何因乃言過去業？三義故不得報。言或有已作未得報者，就現以求愛取有等，雖已作竟以未熟故，現在不得生老死果。或得對治者，若已潤業熟，計應次此未來得生老死果。或於此生若得聖果者，斷愛取故，令已熟之業則便燋亡不得報。二「是中無明」下明舉經三義得報。謂過去既有無明緣行，故知已作，不同愛等。現在既得識等五果，明知則是業已得果。由現在愛取無聖道斷，令未來生死相續不絕。三「是故」下雙結中，有已作是行支，未作是有支，已得果是識支等，未得果是生支等。「聖人已斷凡夫未斷」下正結護業。既有如是差別，何容有一切身一時生過？謂有作未作，何緣一時？有得報未得，云何一時？有斷未斷，如何得一時？「若爾」下重牒顯示。非一切業當受者，是前已斷也。亦非不受者，是前未斷。亦非一時者，顯前作未作。得未得可知。「若自作」下護第二不受報過，謂自作自受。何不他受？以他不作故。三離彼三事護第三失業過，謂由離前三種不得，是故諸業無不得果，故無失業過。下結可知。 > Second, concerning the discrimination in terms of revulsion toward the conditioned: The treatise names this 'the contemplation that protects against errors.' That is to say, non-Buddhists impute three kinds of errors to this principle of conditioned arising: First, that 'all bodies arise simultaneously' sets forth the name of the error. 'Why is that?' is the non-Buddhist's own questioning, establishing the reason for the error. 'Because there is no distinct cause' explains the characteristics of the established error: if there is no distinct cause of self, why would one not obtain the bodies of the five destinies arising together at one time? In the second, the naming, questioning, and establishment can be understood \[similarly\]. 'Because there is no agent' explains the characteristics of the established error: if there is no self performing karma, who receives the future retribution? In the third, the naming and questioning can also be understood \[similarly\]. In the explanation: since there is no self, who holds this karma and causes it to reach the result? Therefore, it would have to be lost. 'Not receiving retribution' in the former \[second error\] is stated looking forward from before; here, 'loss of karma' is stated looking backward from behind. 'These three' and below comprehensively brings them up to show protection \[against errors\]. Namely, past and present causes are distinctly named 'distinct causes.' Because this answers the previous three kinds of objections, it is termed 'the answer.' It also encompasses the following lines. Since the present and future results are distinct by virtue of those distinct causes, how could there be the error of simultaneous arising? Furthermore, since differentiated causes obtain differentiated retributions, how could one say that retribution is not received? And since differentiated retributions arise from distinct causes, how could there be the error of loss of karma? In the following explanatory passage, it first explains the past. 'Ignorance conditions volitional formations' as seeing the past quotes the sūtra passage. In the explanation below there are two clauses: first, clarifying that past causes can make the present, and second, that present results stem from past causes. It explains present consciousness and so forth as future \[retribution\]. Here, it would be sufficient merely to speak of past causes; why must it also speak of the present as their future? Because it wishes to associate cause and result so as to prevent the three errors. 'This then is seeing' and below concludes the past as meaning cause after having explained it. Second, in explaining the present: the statement 'consciousness up to feeling is seeing the present' quotes the sūtra text. In the explanation there are two clauses: first, clarifying that present results stem from past causes; second, 'further able' and below clarifies that past causes obtain present results, and since the present is the future of that past, it says 'obtaining future results.' Third, 'craving, grasping' and below, in explaining the future, first quotes the text. The statement 'further there is birth' explains that from craving, grasping, and so forth, existence as saṃsāra arises, which is called 'there is birth.' Question: The earlier explanations of the past and present both set up two times in mutual opposition; why is the present explanation of the future not like that? Answer: Because as for that past and present, the sūtra itself divides them into two, and thus they must be associated to accomplish protection against errors. The sūtra itself states that the three of craving, grasping, and existence are the future in terms of the result, so it does not rely on the treatise master to associate them, and thus it is not discussed. The statement 'provisionally determined' concludes distinctly the preceding passage. Because what was clarified above is one, dividing it into three times is called 'provisional.' The principles and numbers being such, it is called 'determined.' Below, it explains that mutual generation across the three times is endless, and therefore it says 'further, because birth evolves in future lifetimes.' 'What does this say?' and below explains that the preceding protection against errors has three meanings: first, broadly clarifying that karma does not obtain a result; second, citing the sūtra to clarify obtaining \[results\]; third, concluding both obtaining and not obtaining. In the first, it first raises generally that due to three meanings, past karma cannot obtain retribution: First, 'some are not yet performed' seeks craving, grasping, existence, and so on in the past; because they were not performed at that time, one does not obtain the results of birth, aging, and death in the present. Question: Examining the meaning of this passage, it seems to say that in the past, ignorance did not perform karmic formations; why then does it say craving and so forth were not performed? Answer: If ignorance did not perform karma, why would it be called past karma? Due to three meanings it does not obtain retribution. The statement 'some are already performed but have not obtained retribution' seeks craving, grasping, existence, and so on in the present; although already performed, because they are not yet mature, one does not obtain the results of birth, aging, and death in the present. 'Or obtaining an antidote': if the moistened karma is already mature, it should sequentially obtain the results of birth, aging, and death in the future; or if one obtains the holy fruit in this life, because craving and grasping are severed, the already-matured karma is scorched and destroyed, and does not obtain retribution. Second, 'therein ignorance' and below clarifies citing the sūtra's three meanings of obtaining retribution. That is to say, since in the past there was ignorance conditioning volitional formations, one knows it was already performed, unlike craving and so forth. Since in the present one obtains the five results of consciousness and so forth, it is clear that this karma has already obtained results. Because present craving and grasping are not severed by the noble path, future saṃsāra continues without interruption. Third, 'therefore' and below, in concluding both: having already been performed refers to the formation factor; not yet performed refers to the existence factor; having already obtained results refers to the consciousness factor and so forth; not yet obtaining results refers to the birth factor and so forth. 'Noble ones have severed them, ordinary beings have not severed them' and below correctly concludes the protection of karma. Since there are such distinctions, how could there be room for the error of all bodies arising simultaneously? That is to say, between performed and not yet performed, why would they be simultaneous? Between having obtained retribution and not yet obtained, how could they be simultaneous? Between severed and unsevered, how could they be simultaneous? 'If so' and below repeatedly brings them up to reveal them. 'Not all karma will be experienced' refers to what was severed before. 'Nor is it unexperienced' refers to what was not severed before. 'Nor is it simultaneous' reveals the performed and not yet performed, and obtaining and not obtaining, as can be understood. 'If one acts oneself' and below protects against the second error of not receiving retribution: that is, acting oneself and experiencing oneself. Why does another not experience it? Because the other did not perform it. Third, leaving behind those three matters protects against the third error of loss of karma: that is, because of leaving behind the former three kinds of non-attainment, therefore all karmas without exception obtain results, so there is no error of loss of karma. The conclusion below can be understood. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 13.40](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.13.40) - [Next: 13.42](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.13.42) - [Up: 13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.13) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733~en-mt.13.41) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.13.41](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.13.41) · Pramāṇa