大方廣佛華嚴經疏 14.14

14.14

Second, from "At that time Jñānaprabha..." onward, in the reply there are two parts: First, one verse praises the question and promises to explain. The first half praises the question, meaning that [Mañjuśrī] has himself investigated the profound purport and acts entirely for the vast benefit of others with a benevolent mind; the next line promises to explain according to capacity, speaking in accord with the nature; the last line urges them to listen, bidding them to accept it attentively because the words are the same but the meaning is distinct. The following ten verses are the formal answer. The momentum of the answer is vast and multifaceted, fully answering the threefold intent of the question, and is provisionally divided into two: The first five verses answer, from within the previous clarification, by what causes and conditions they do not know one another; since this clarification answers the previous challenge, it is explained first. The latter five verses formally answer the previous challenge. Now, the first part is divided into two: first, one verse explains through doctrine; next, four verses use analogies. Now, the first: The meaning is that it is precisely because variety arises from conditions that they do not know one another. The first half of this verse presents the cause, the second half concludes by returning to the fundamental tenet, and the subsequent four verses serve as shared analogies. The syllogistic proof is: The eyes and so forth are the subject; they definitively do not know one another, which is the property to be proved. The reason is: Because they lack entity and function through arising from conditions. The shared analogy is: Like water in a river; river water lacks entity and function, and river water does not know [itself]; the eyes and so forth lack entity and function, and the eyes and so forth do not know one another. If explained through the door of mutual dependence in dependent origination, the first line means that causes and conditions depend on each other and are mutually powerless. The next line means that result-dharmas contain unreality and therefore lack essential nature; this will be explained separately in the analogies below. Therefore, unreal dependent origination has roughly three meanings: 1. Because they rely on each other and each lacks entity and function, they do not know one another; 2. Because it relies on this absence of knowledge and absence of nature, dependent origination exists; 3. Because these delusive dharmas are each devoid of existence, the true principle of naturelessness is constantly manifested. The present text contains only the first and last two meanings. The words "all dharmas" do not merely refer to the aforementioned ten items in five pairs, but also encompass all conditioned dharmas. Results arise from causes, so results lack essential nature; causes are established through results, so causes lack essential nature. If the cause lacks essential nature, how could it have the function of bringing about a result? If the result lacks essential nature, how could it have the capacity to repay the cause? Furthermore, because they are mutually dependent, they lack power. Because they take the other as self, they lack an entity. In concluding in the second half, "therefore" refers to the fact that both entity and function are absent, and therefore all those dharmas do not know one another.