華嚴經探玄記 13.41

13.41

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.