大方廣佛華嚴經疏 14.13

14.13

第三結成前難中，此文意稍難見，略為二解：一依古德作遮救重難，如前第二問意中辨；二直結成前難。且依此釋文自有三意，由前難意亦有三故。一直問所以，故今結云非但本性是一，我細推現事各不相知，既有種種，何緣不相知？既不相知，誰教種種？若謂業令種種業不知心，若謂心令種種心不知業，一一觀察未知種種之所由也。二者懷疑，故結云既不相知，為是一性？為是種種？三作相違難，結云一性隨於種種即失真諦，種種隨於一性即失俗諦。今見種種，又不相知，此二互乖，云何並立？已知大意，次正釋文。亦有十事五對，略為二解：一通、二別。通謂總觀前來總別二報。於中，初一對就先業因約能所依以難。然有二意：一約本識。謂業是能依、心是所依，離所無能，故云業不知心；離能無所，故云心不知業。以各無體用，不能相成。既各不相知，誰生種種？下並準之。二約第六識。業是所造、心是能造，並皆速滅，起時不言我起、滅時不言我滅，何能有體而得相生成種種耶？第二對約得報果時難能所受。謂受是報因，即名言種為業所引，受所受報。離報無受，故云受不知報；離受無報，故云報不知受。以並無體故，準前應知。三約名言因就能所依難。謂前能受報因，依心無體故無相知，餘義同前。四約因緣就親疎相假難。謂所引名言種為因，能引業為緣，相待相奪各無自性，如不自生等準之。五約境智相對相見虛無難。謂境是心變，境不知心；心託境生，心不知境。以無境外心能取心外境，是故心境虛妄不相知也。第二別觀者，以初二對結趣善惡。趣善惡者，正由業熏，受總報故。二復以第二及第三對結受生同異，初對以名言種對所生處，次對以名言種對能依本識。三復以第三及第四對結苦樂不同及端正醜陋。初對觀現受時。次對觀苦樂因及彼妍媸皆由緣令異，謂損益因成苦樂果，以瞋忍因成妍媸果。四復以第四及第五對結諸根滿缺。亦有滿業因緣，有損他益他之異，故成內六處滿缺之果。又由內根有滿缺故，於分別位了境不同，並皆無性各不相知，既不相知誰令種種？

Third, in concluding the previous challenge: The meaning of this text is somewhat difficult to see; it is briefly explained in two ways: First, following the ancient masters, it constitutes a renewed challenge to preclude counter-arguments, as distinguished earlier in the second explanation of the question's intent. Second, it directly concludes the previous challenge. Taking this latter interpretation, the text naturally contains three meanings, because the intent of the previous challenge also had three: First, directly questioning the cause, so it now concludes: Not only is the original nature one, but when I closely investigate present phenomena, they do not know one another; since there is variety, why do they not know one another? Since they do not know one another, what causes the variety? If you say karma causes variety, karma does not know mind; if you say mind causes variety, mind does not know karma; examining each one, the source of variety remains unknown. Second, entertaining doubt, it thus concludes: Since they do not know one another, is it a single nature, or is it manifold? Third, formulating a challenge of contradiction, it concludes: If the single nature conforms to variety, it loses the ultimate truth; if variety conforms to the single nature, it loses the conventional truth. Now we see variety, yet they do not know one another; these two conflict with each other, so how can they stand together? Having understood the general import, next is the formal explanation of the text. There are also ten items in five pairs, briefly explained in two ways: general and specific. "General" refers to generally contemplating the previously mentioned general and particular retributions. Among them, the first pair challenges the supported and the support in terms of prior karmic causes. However, there are two meanings: First, in terms of the fundamental consciousness: Karma is what relies, and mind is what is relied upon; apart from what is relied upon there is nothing that relies, hence "karma does not know mind"; apart from what relies there is no support, hence "mind does not know karma". Because each lacks entity and function, they cannot establish each other. Since they do not know each other, what produces the variety? The rest should be understood accordingly. Second, in terms of the sixth consciousness: Karma is what is created, and mind is the creator; both perish swiftly, and when arising they do not say "I arise", nor when ceasing do they say "I cease"; how could they have an entity so as to establish each other and produce variety? The second pair, in terms of the time of obtaining the retribution fruit, challenges the experiencer and the experienced. Experiencing is the cause of retribution, namely the nominal seeds drawn by karma to experience the retribution undergone. Apart from retribution there is no experiencing, hence "experiencing does not know retribution"; apart from experiencing there is no retribution, hence "retribution does not know experiencing". Because both lack an entity, this should be known by analogy with the above. Third, in terms of the nominal cause, challenging the supported and the support: The aforementioned cause that experiences retribution relies on mind and lacks an entity, hence there is no mutual knowledge; the rest of the meaning is as before. Fourth, in terms of causes and conditions, challenging the mutual dependence of direct and indirect factors: The drawn nominal seeds serve as the direct cause, and the directing karma serves as the condition; mutually dependent and mutually negating, each lacks intrinsic nature, which should be understood by analogy with "not produced from itself" and so forth. Fifth, in terms of the mutual opposition of object and cognition, challenging the unreality of mutual perception: The object is transformed by the mind, so the object does not know the mind; the mind arises dependent on the object, so the mind does not know the object. Because there is no mind outside objects capable of grasping objects outside mind, mind and objects are unreal and do not know each other. Second, the specific contemplation: The first two pairs conclude the wholesome and unwholesome destinies. The wholesome and unwholesome destinies arise precisely from karmic perfuming, whereby general retribution is experienced. Second, the second and third pairs conclude the similarities and differences in taking rebirth: the first pair contrasts the nominal seeds with the birthplace, and the next pair contrasts the nominal seeds with the fundamental consciousness that is relied upon. Third, the third and fourth pairs conclude the differences in suffering and pleasure, and beauty and ugliness. The first pair contemplates the time of present experiencing. The next pair contemplates the causes of suffering and pleasure and their beauty and ugliness as all being differentiated by conditions: causes of harm or benefit produce fruits of suffering or pleasure, and causes of anger or patience produce fruits of ugliness or beauty. Fourth, the fourth and fifth pairs conclude the completeness and deficiency of the faculties. There are also causes and conditions of completing karma, which have the differences of harming others or benefiting others, thereby producing the results of completeness or deficiency in the internal six sense spheres. Furthermore, because the internal faculties have completeness or deficiency, when in the state of discrimination they comprehend objects differently; all lack intrinsic nature and do not know one another; since they do not know one another, what makes them manifold?