大方廣佛華嚴經疏 14.27

14.27

第二答意云：達體業亡、迷真業起，報因業起，何須我耶？業報攬緣虛無自體，故無我所。由法無我，非斷滅故，業果不亡斯乃正理，聖教所明不違現事。法若定有，不可造受，便違正理。在文分二：初一法說、餘九喻況。今初，上半約俗諦緣生，即業報相屬，答前現見。次句勝義即空，印其按定。此二不二，故不相違。無所有言，該上業果，則亦無我所。後句是聖教量。《智論》第二云「有業亦有果，無作業果者。此第一甚深，是諸佛所說。」下九喻顯通相而明，喻於業果從緣無性不壞事相；別彰喻意，喻各不同。初三頌喻業報無性不壞虛相、次一偈喻無造受者、三一偈喻性一相殊、後四喻體無來處。初中，初偈雙喻業果皆真心現，雖無實體而相不同；次偈喻能生因緣相虛；後偈喻所生業果無實。今初。若法相宗唯以本識為鏡，今依法性宗亦以如來藏性而為明鏡，然有二義：一隨境界質現業緣影，故合云業性亦如是。二隨業緣質現果影像，故前偈云「隨其所行業，如是果報生。」二文影略，共顯業果似有無體。合云業者，謂善惡等三性者通性及相。謂此業體以無性之法而為其性，不失業果之相而為其性。由無性故，能成業果。由不壞相，方顯真空。故《中論》云「雖空亦不斷，雖有而不常，業果亦不失，是名佛所說。」不失業果方顯中道。又如鏡現穢像，非直不污鏡淨，亦乃由此顯鏡踰淨。如來藏現生死業果亦然，非直不損真性平等，亦乃由此知如來藏自性恒淨也。此有四位：一能現位，復有二義：一由真淨故現染、二由真淨故不為污。二所現位，亦有二義：一由相虛故不能污、二由相虛故虛相現。三相對位，亦有二義：一由分明現染方顯性淨、二由性本恒淨令染妄現。四真淨虛染鎔融一味無礙圓融，思之。此約染淨門，以但有所現即為染故。更約喻中以一異門釋，謂一鏡是定一門。二所現染淨妍媸等殊是定異門，染淨雖虛不能相攝，故是異也；鏡現染處不異現淨，故是一也。三像不異鏡是非異義，鏡外無像故。鏡不異像是非一義，正現像時去像亦失鏡故。上二即非一非異門。四像雖即鏡而不壞像，鏡雖即像而不礙鏡，是亦一亦異門也。二田種生芽喻能生者，田喻業緣也，種子喻於識種因也，此二相待無性故不相知，由不相知方能生，於後有苦芽，故云自然能出生也。亦本識為田，名言為種。三幻師現幻喻喻所生者，若幻色喻報，則幻師喻業；若幻色喻業，則幻師喻業因。以業亦緣生，同報無體，而幻相不亡。故《中論》內以化復現化喻業果俱空。若幻唯喻報，業則不空。四衢以喻四識住，造業處故。二機關出聲喻無造受者。機關緣造，體虛無人，喻業從緣，故無造者。從機出聲，尤更非實，喻報因業起，安有受人？夫無我者，因對我無。既無有我，何有非我？著無我者亦是倒故。三出㲉音別喻性一相殊者，如鳥在㲉含聲未吐，喻業同一性；出㲉聲別，猶感報無差。然鷄子之中終無鳳響，業雖無性善惡冥熏。四有四偈喻體無來處。皆從緣來，即無來故，然亦不同。初一喻因含於果故無來處、次偈果酬於因故無所從，此二喻內異熟業果也。次偈轉輪王七寶喻外增上業果也。後偈喻無漏業果，無漏智火焚蕩有漏，智因漏發，故亦無來。業果寂然，方依幻住。

Second, regarding the meaning of the answer: When one realizes the essence, karma ceases; when one is confused about the true, karma arises. Since retribution arises due to karma, what need is there for a self? Karma and retribution assemble conditions, being empty and devoid of own-essence; hence there is no 'mine'. Because there is no self in phenomena and there is no annihilation, karma and its fruit are not lost: this is the correct principle; what the holy teachings explain does not contradict present phenomenal facts. If phenomena were determinately existent, they could not be created or received, which would contradict the correct principle. The text is divided into two: first, one [verse] of doctrinal exposition; the remaining nine are metaphors. As for the first: the first half-verse concerns conventional truth and arising through conditions, which means that karma and retribution correspond to each other, answering the previous [question about] present perception. The next line [asserts that they are] empty in the ultimate sense, confirming the premise established. These two are non-dual, and therefore do not contradict each other. The expression 'without existence' encompasses the karma and fruit above, and thus there is also no 'mine'. The last line is the authority of the holy teachings. The second fascicle of the *Prajñāpāramitopadeśa* (*Dazhidulun*) states: 'There is karma and there is fruit, but there is no doer of karma or fruit. This is the foremost profundity; it is taught by all Buddhas.' The nine verses below illustrate this by clarifying the common characteristic: they use metaphors to show that karma and fruit lack own-nature as they arise from conditions, without destroying phenomenal marks; their metaphorical meanings are individually distinct, each metaphor being different. The first three verses use metaphors to show that karma and retribution lack own-nature without destroying empty marks; the next verse uses a metaphor to show that there is no creator or receiver; the third single verse uses a metaphor to show that while the nature is one, the marks are distinct; the last four metaphors show that the essence has no place from which it comes. Within the first group, the first verse uses a dual metaphor to show that karma and fruit are both manifestations of the true mind: although devoid of real essence, their marks are not the same. The next verse uses a metaphor to show that the conditions that can produce them are empty in their marks. The subsequent verse uses a metaphor to show that the karma and fruit produced are devoid of reality. Now for the first: while the Dharma-characteristic school takes only the fundamental consciousness (*ālaya-vijñāna*) as the mirror, here, relying on the Dharma-nature school, the nature of the *tathāgatagarbha* is also taken as the bright mirror. However, there are two meanings: first, following the substantial object of the sphere, the shadow of karmic conditions appears; hence, in synthesis, it is said that the nature of karma is also like this. Second, following the substantial object of karmic conditions, the reflected image of retribution appears; hence the preceding verse says, 'According to the karma that is performed, such retribution is born.' The two passages imply each other, together revealing that karma and fruit are apparent existents devoid of essence. In synthesis, 'karma' refers to the three natures—wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate—which encompass both nature and marks. That is, the essence of this karma takes the phenomenon of non-nature as its nature, and does not lose the marks of karma and fruit as its nature. Because it lacks own-nature, it can accomplish karma and fruit. Because it does not destroy marks, true emptiness is thereby revealed. Thus the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* states: 'Though empty, it is not annihilated; though existent, it is not permanent. Karma and fruit are also not lost: this is called the teaching of the Buddha.' It is by not losing karma and fruit that the middle way is revealed. Furthermore, just as a mirror reflects a filthy image, which not only does not defile the mirror's purity, but through this shows the mirror to be all the purer, so it is when the *tathāgatagarbha* manifests the karma and fruit of saṃsāra: not only does it not impair the equality of the true nature, but through this one knows that the own-nature of the *tathāgatagarbha* is eternally pure. This has four stages: First, the stage of that which can manifest, which also has two meanings: 1. By virtue of its true purity, it manifests defilement; 2. By virtue of its true purity, it is not defiled. Second, the stage of that which is manifested, which also has two meanings: 1. Because its marks are empty, it cannot defile; 2. Because its marks are empty, empty marks appear. Third, the stage of mutual correlation, which also has two meanings: 1. It is because defilement is distinctly manifested that the nature's purity is revealed; 2. It is because the nature is originally and eternally pure that defilement falsely appears. Fourth, true purity and empty defilement merge into one flavor, unimpeded and perfectly interpenetrating: contemplate this. This is explained in terms of the gate of defilement and purity, because whatever is manifested constitutes defilement. Explaining it further through the gate of oneness and difference in the metaphor: First, the single mirror is the gate of determinate oneness. Second, the differences among the manifested defilements, purities, beauties, and uglinesses are the gate of determinate difference: although defilement and purity are empty, they cannot encompass each other; hence they are different. Where the mirror manifests defilement, it is not different from where it manifests purity; hence it is one. Third, that the image is not different from the mirror is the meaning of non-difference, because outside the mirror there is no image. That the mirror is not different from the image is the meaning of non-oneness, because at the very time the image appears, removing the image also loses the mirror. The above two constitute the gate of neither-oneness-nor-difference. Fourth, although the image is identical with the mirror, it does not destroy the image; although the mirror is identical with the image, it does not obstruct the mirror: this is the gate of both-oneness-and-difference. Second, regarding the metaphor of a field and seeds producing sprouts as that which can produce: the field is a metaphor for karmic conditions; the seeds are a metaphor for the causes that are consciousness-seeds. These two, being mutually dependent, lack own-nature and thus are not conscious of one another; and it is precisely because they are not conscious of one another that they can produce the sprout of suffering in future existence; hence it is said that they naturally can produce. Alternatively, the fundamental consciousness is the field, and verbal designation is the seed. Third, regarding the metaphor of an illusionist manifesting illusions as that which is produced: if illusory forms are a metaphor for retribution, then the illusionist is a metaphor for karma; if illusory forms are a metaphor for karma, then the illusionist is a metaphor for the cause of karma. Because karma is also conditionally arisen and, like retribution, devoid of essence, its illusory marks are nevertheless not annihilated. Thus, in the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā*, an apparition creating yet another apparition is used as a metaphor for karma and fruit both being empty. If the illusion were only a metaphor for retribution, karma would not be empty. The crossroads is a metaphor for the four stations of consciousness, because they are the places where karma is performed. Second, the mechanism producing sounds is a metaphor for the absence of a creator or receiver: A mechanism is constructed by conditions, its essence is empty, and there is no person in it—this is a metaphor for karma depending on conditions, so there is no creator. Sounds emerging from the mechanism are even more devoid of reality—this is a metaphor for retribution arising due to karma, so how could there be a person who receives it? Now, 'non-self' exists only in opposition to 'self'. Since there is no self, how could there be a non-self? To cling to non-self is also an inversion. Third, emerging from the shell with different sounds is a metaphor for the nature being one while marks are distinct: Just as birds inside the shell contain sound without yet emitting it, which is a metaphor for karma having the same nature; when they emerge from the shell, the sounds are distinct, just as the retributions incurred do not err. However, from a hen's egg there will never be the cry of a phoenix: although karma lacks own-nature, wholesome and unwholesome obscurely perfume it. Fourth, there are four verses using metaphors to show that the essence has no place from which it comes. Since all come from conditions, they have no coming; yet they are also not the same. The first uses a metaphor to show that the cause contains the fruit, so it has no place from which it comes; the next verse shows that the fruit responds to the cause, so it has nowhere from which it proceeds: these two are metaphors for internal, ripening karma and fruit. The next verse uses the seven treasures of a wheel-turning king as a metaphor for external, sovereign karma and fruit. The last verse is a metaphor for untainted karma and fruit: the fire of untainted wisdom incinerates what is tainted, and wisdom is aroused because of what is tainted; hence it too has no coming. When karma and fruit are serene and quiescent, one can truly abide in accordance with illusion.