大方廣佛華嚴經疏 14.27

14.27

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.