大方廣佛華嚴經疏 14.16

14.16

第二依火焰起滅喻中，三義同前。初唯焰者，謂焰起滅有其二義：一前焰謝滅引起後焰，後焰無體而不能知前焰，前焰已滅復無所知，是故各各皆不相知。二前焰若未滅，亦依前引無體故無能知，後焰未生故無所知，是故彼亦各不相知。妄法亦爾，剎那生滅不能自立，謂已滅未生無物可知，生已則滅無體可知，是故皆無所有也。斯則「流金爍石而不熱」也。二依所依者，謂彼火焰即由於此無體無用不相知，故而有起滅虛妄之相，是則攬非有而為有也。妄法亦爾，依此無所依之真理方是妄法，是亦非有為有也。三唯所依者，推起滅之焰體用俱無，無焰之理挺然顯現，是則無妄法之有、有妄法之無湛然顯現，遂令緣起之相相無不盡，無性之理理無不現。上三義中，亦如次喻答前三問也。下二喻準知。

In the second metaphor, of flames arising and ceasing, the three meanings are the same as before. First, solely the flames: the arising and ceasing of flames has two meanings: 1. The prior flame disappears and ceases, giving rise to the subsequent flame; the subsequent flame lacks essence and cannot know the prior flame, and the prior flame has already ceased and again has nothing to know; therefore, each and every one does not know the other. 2. If the prior flame has not yet ceased, it also relies on what drew it earlier and, lacking essence, has nothing capable of knowing, while the subsequent flame has not yet arisen and therefore has nothing to be known; therefore, they also do not know each other. False dharmas are also like this: arising and ceasing from moment to moment, they cannot stand on their own; what has already ceased and what has not yet arisen have no thing to be known, and having arisen, they immediately cease, having no essence to be known; therefore, all are completely non-existent. This, then, is 'melting metals and liquefying stones without being hot.' Second, relying on the support means that precisely due to this absence of essence and function and not knowing each other, the flames have the false marks of arising and ceasing; thus, gathering what is non-existent, they are taken as existing. False dharmas are also like this: reliant on this unsupported true principle, they are only then false dharmas; this is also non-existence taken as existence. Third, solely the support means that when one inquires into the flames that arise and cease, both essence and function are absent, and the principle of flamelessness stands forth clearly revealed; thus the existence of false dharmas is absent, and the non-existence of false dharmas is present, serenely revealed, causing the marks of pratītyasamutpāda to be completely exhausted in their marks, and the principle of no self-nature to be completely revealed in its principle. In the three meanings above, they also answer the three preceding questions in sequence by metaphor. The remaining two metaphors should be understood accordingly.