[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大方廣佛華嚴經疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735) › 40.5 # 大方廣佛華嚴經疏 40.5 大方廣佛華嚴經疏 40.5 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [40.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.40.5) 第四不相捨離中，三門同前。初約相諦，即當自因觀。自因之義已見上文。又論云自因觀者，無明等自生因觀緣事故。謂離前支無後支故，如不離無明有行等，則無明唯是行自因也。以是自故令行不斷，以是因故但云助成。若唯不離無明有行，則成太即，不應言無明緣行。若全離無明有行，則成太離，無明則非行因故。論云「異則不成，不即不離則名自因。」亦二義成矣。故論主引《中論》偈云「眾因緣生法，是則不即因，亦復不異因，非斷亦非常。」初句汎舉也。次句以是所生，非能生故。亦復不異因者，從於能生生所生故。非斷亦非常者，不即故不常，不異故不斷。又不即因故果不斷因不常，不異因故果不常因不斷。又以不即故因果俱不斷，不異故因果俱不常，非無因常故。又亦反此，非相續常故。又以不離是不即故，即不常為不斷，思之。文中先順、後逆。順中而論云「無明有二種：一子時、二果時。」是中子時者，令行不斷，有二種義故。緣事示現者，子是種子、果是現行，現行之果雖前已謝故不取之，種子續故令行不斷，能助成行故取子時。亦可初起無明名之為子，遷至行時名之為果。由前等引之力令行不斷，助成行故偏取子時。餘十一支皆有二時，例此可了。後逆觀，論云「先際後際滅，中際亦無，是故不說」者，十二因緣不出三際，過未既無，中豈得有？是故不說有不斷、助成義。又不說者，滅則滅前諸義，故不假說子果等殊。二約大悲隨順觀破顛倒因中，以自在天為眾生因。今以無明等為行等因，尚不從於餘支，豈得從乎自在。三約一切相智觀，即當第四因緣相觀。有支無作故者，既由前前令後後不斷助成後後，則後後無性，何有前前能作後後？即以無作為緣之相，是種智境。 > In the fourth \[section\], on not abandoning each other, the three gates are the same as before. First, regarding the contemplation of the truth of marks, it corresponds to the contemplation of self-cause. The meaning of self-cause has already been seen above. Moreover, the treatise says that the contemplation of self-cause is contemplating the affairs of conditions in terms of ignorance and so on being the causes of their own generation. This means that apart from the prior limb there is no posterior limb, just as without being apart from ignorance there are formations and so forth; thus ignorance is solely the self-cause of formations. Because it is 'self', it causes formations to be uninterrupted; because it is 'cause', it is merely called assisting and completing. If there were formations solely not apart from ignorance, they would become overly identical, and one should not say 'ignorance conditions formations'. If formations were completely apart from ignorance, they would become overly separate, and ignorance would not be the cause of formations. Hence the treatise says: 'If different, it is not established; neither identical nor different is called self-cause.' Both meanings are thus established. Therefore, the treatise master cites the verse from the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā: 'Phenomena arisen from causes and conditions / Are neither identical with the cause / Nor different from the cause; / Therefore they are neither annihilated nor permanent.' The first line brings it up in general. The next line is because it is what is generated, not the generator. 'Nor different from the cause' is because what is generated arises from the generator. 'Neither annihilated nor permanent': not identical, hence not permanent; not different, hence not annihilated. Furthermore, because not identical with the cause, the fruit is not annihilated and the cause is not permanent; because not different from the cause, the fruit is not permanent and the cause is not annihilated. Moreover, because not identical, cause and fruit are both not annihilated; because not different, cause and fruit are both not permanent, for it is not uncaused permanence. Moreover, it is also the reverse of this, for it is not continuity-permanence. Furthermore, because not being apart is not being identical, non-permanence is non-annihilation; reflect on this. In the text, forward is first, and reverse is after. In the forward order, the treatise says: 'Ignorance has two kinds: first, the time of the seed; second, the time of the fruit.' Here, 'the time of the seed' causes formations to be uninterrupted because it has two meanings. Revealing through conditioned affairs: 'seed' is the karmic seed, and 'fruit' is the active manifestation. Although the fruit of the active manifestation has already passed away earlier and is therefore not taken, because the seed continues, it causes formations to be uninterrupted; since it is able to assist and complete formations, the time of the seed is taken. It can also be said that initial ignorance is called the seed, and when it transforms into formations it is called the fruit. Due to the power of the former equal-immediate inducement, it causes formations to be uninterrupted; because it assists and completes formations, the time of the seed is specifically taken. The other eleven limbs all have two times, which can be understood by analogy. In the subsequent reverse contemplation, the treatise says: 'When the previous limit and the posterior limit are extinguished, the middle limit also does not exist; therefore it is not spoken.' The twelve links of conditioned arising do not go beyond the three limits. Since the past and future do not exist, how could the middle exist? Therefore it does not speak of having the meanings of being uninterrupted and assisting-and-completing. Moreover, 'not spoken' means that when extinguished, the prior meanings are extinguished, so it does not provisionally speak of the distinctions between seed and fruit. Second, regarding the contemplation of great compassion in accord with \[the world\]: in refuting inverted causes, they take the god Īśvara as the cause of sentient beings. Now, by taking ignorance and so on as the cause of formations and so forth, they do not even arise from other limbs, so how could they arise from Īśvara? Third, regarding the contemplation of the wisdom of all marks, it corresponds to the fourth, the contemplation of the characteristics of causes and conditions. As for 'the limbs of existence being without agency': since each preceding one causes each subsequent one to be uninterrupted and assists and completes each subsequent one, then each subsequent one lacks inherent nature; how could each preceding one have an agent that produces each subsequent one? Taking non-agency as the characteristic of conditions is precisely the sphere of the wisdom of all marks. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 40.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.40.4) - [Next: 40.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.40.6) - [Up: 40](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.40) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735~en-mt.40.5) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (2) - [華嚴經探玄記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.13.33) — Classical Chinese - [十地經論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.dasabhumika!vyakhyana*zh-bodhiruci.8.19) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.40.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.40.5) · Pramāṇa