大方廣佛華嚴經疏 21.17

21.17

第七智了三種世間性相，諸邊不動，故名力林。十頌顯佛離相真智，於中分三：初四遍明世間、次五雙遣世及出世、後一觀成利益。今初，略有二觀：初二偈攝末歸本觀，顯眾生世間空；後二緣生無作觀，兼顯器世間空。今初也。初二句推假名眾生不出三世，顯是無常；次二句推三世眾生不出於蘊，顯無有我；次句蘊由業生以明果空，顯非邪因；次句推業唯心，明心外無法；次句體心如幻，不離性空及與中道，如幻無性故，非有非無故。末句以本例末，則上五一如皆展轉緣生故。二緣生無作觀中，初偈無作故緣成、後偈緣成即無作。今初，言不自他作者，通遣諸非。一約外道，非自性等作，亦非梵天等他作，但以虛妄無業報故，廣如三論破。二約小乘，非同類因自作，亦非異熟因他作，以皆相待無自性故。三約因緣相待，如《十地論》及《對法》所明。四約以因望果，《中論》云「自作及他作，共作無因作，如是說諸苦，於果則不然。」此自他言含於二意：一以果為自、以因為他，論云「果法不能自作己體」故。二以因為自、以緣為他，此明不從因緣，無果待對故。離既不成，合亦不成，故論云「若彼此共成，應有共作。若彼此尚無作，何況無因作。」彼此即自他也。下半二意：一不礙緣成，以遣無因；二非但不礙幻有，亦由有空義故能成因果，是則不動真際建立諸法。又非但說於苦四種義不成，一切外萬物四義皆不成，成壞之言顯兼器界。後偈緣成即無作者，向約幻有雖言成壞，幻有即空故不應說，是則不壞假名而說實相。第二五頌雙遣中，初半偈假徵、次半標答、次偈出體，釋成蘊是世間緣成，寂滅即出世間故。《淨名經》云「世間性空即是出世間。」一體說二，故云假名。次二句徵蘊名體。世以蘊為體，蘊以何為體？次二句標答，上句答體；下句答名，應名無生五蘊。既云性不可滅，則顯前非事滅。次一偈釋成，空故不滅亦非事在。不滅則知本自不生，是無生義。後一偈例出世間，顯智正覺世間，亦應緣無性。又證無性之理為自體故。末後一偈明觀益者，佛以實法為其體故，見法則常見佛也。

Seventh, because wisdom understands the nature and characteristics of the three kinds of worlds and does not move in any extremes, it is named "Forest of Power (Balavana)." The ten verses reveal the Buddha's true wisdom that is free from marks. It is divided into three parts: the first four comprehensively clarify the world; the next five mutually dispel the worldly and the transworldly; the final one concerns the benefit of completing the contemplation. Now, the first: broadly, there are two contemplations: the first two verses present the contemplation of gathering the branch-effects back to the root, revealing the emptiness of the world of sentient beings; the latter two present the contemplation of conditioned arising as being without agency, concurrently revealing the emptiness of the container world. Now, the first: the first two lines investigate conventional sentient beings as not going beyond the three time periods, revealing that they are impermanent; the next two lines investigate the sentient beings of the three time periods as not going beyond the aggregates, revealing that they have no self; the next line shows that the aggregates arise from karma to clarify that results are empty, revealing that they do not arise from heterodox causes; the next line investigates that karma is mind alone, clarifying that there are no dharmas outside the mind; the next line realizes that the mind is like an illusion, not apart from the emptiness of nature and the middle way, because like an illusion it lacks self-nature, and because it is neither existent nor non-existent. The final line uses the root to pattern the branches; thus the above five are unified in suchness, because all consecutively arise from conditions. In the second contemplation on conditioned arising as without agency: the first verse shows that because it is without agency, it is established through conditions; the latter verse shows that being established through conditions is precisely being without agency. Now, the first: saying that it is not made by self or other comprehensively dispels various errors. First, regarding the non-Buddhists: it is not made by self-nature (prakṛti) or the like, nor is it made by another such as Brahmā; it is simply that falsely there is no karma and retribution, as refuted at length in the Sanlun texts. Second, regarding the Hīnayāna: it is not made by itself as a cause of the same kind (sabhāga-hetu), nor is it made by another as a vipāka-hetu, because all are mutually dependent and lack self-nature. Third, regarding the mutual dependence of causes and conditions, it is as clarified in the *Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā* and the *Abhidharmasamuccaya*. Fourth, regarding causes viewed against results, the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* states: "Suffering produced by itself, produced by another, produced by both, or produced without a cause—such are said of all sufferings, but in the case of effects, it is not so." These words "self" and "other" contain two meanings: first, taking the effect as self and the cause as other, because the treatise says, "Dharmas that are effects cannot make their own essence by themselves"; second, taking the cause as self and the conditions as other, this clarifies that it does not come from causes and conditions, because there is no effect to stand in opposition. Since separation is not established, combination is also not established; hence the treatise says, "If they were mutually and jointly established, there would be joint production. If they still have no production mutually, how much less could there be production without a cause!" "Mutually" means self and other. The latter half has two meanings: first, it does not obstruct establishment through conditions, thereby dispelling causelessness; second, not only does it not obstruct illusory existence, but also because there is the meaning of emptiness, causes and effects can be established; thus, without moving from the true limit, it establishes all dharmas. Furthermore, not only is it said that the four meanings regarding suffering are not established, but the four meanings regarding all external myriad things are also not established; the words "formation and decay" show that it encompasses the container world. As for the latter verse showing that establishment through conditions is precisely non-agency: previously, in terms of illusory existence, although formation and decay were spoken of, illusory existence is precisely empty and therefore should not be spoken of; this is not destroying conventional designations while speaking of the true mark. In the second group of five verses mutually dispelling [the worldly and transworldly]: the first half-verse poses a provisional interrogation; the next half indicates the answer; the next verse produces the essence, explaining that the aggregates are the world established through conditions, while quiescence is precisely the transworldly. Hence the *Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra* says: "The emptiness of the nature of the world is precisely the transworld." The two are spoken of from a single essence; therefore they are called conventional designations. The next two lines investigate the name and essence of the aggregates: The world takes the aggregates as its essence; what do the aggregates take as their essence? The next two lines indicate the answer: the upper line answers regarding the essence; the lower line answers regarding the name, which should be named the unarisen five aggregates. Since it says that the nature cannot be extinguished, it reveals that the preceding was not phenomenal extinction. The next verse explains it: being empty, it is not extinguished, nor does it phenomenally persist. Not being extinguished, one knows it is fundamentally unborn; this is the meaning of non-arising. The final verse uses this to pattern the transworldly, revealing that the world of the wisdom of sambodhi also responds to conditions without self-nature. Furthermore, it takes the realization of the principle of non-self-nature as its own essence. The final verse clarifies the benefit of the contemplation: because the Buddha takes the real Dharma as his essence, one who sees the Dharma constantly sees the Buddha.