大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 14.6

14.6

疏「太極為因」等者，二斷義也。謂若用太極為因，故是計無為有，亦是邪因。疏「若謂一陰」下，通顯邪因無因。《易》云「一陰一陽之謂道，陰陽不測之謂神。」一陰一陽謂之道者，注云「道者何？無之稱也。無不通、無不由也，況之曰道。寂然無體，不可為象。必有之用極，而無之功顯，故至乎神無方而易無體，而道可見矣。故窮變以盡神，因神以明道。陰陽雖殊，無一以待之。在陰為無陰，陰以之生。在陽為無陽，陽以之成。故曰一陰一陽之謂道。」孔疏云「（孔疏非孔子，乃孔頴達也。）一謂無也，無陰無陽乃謂之道。一得為無者，無是虛無，虛無是太極。不可分別，唯一而已，故以一為無也。若有境則有彼此相形，有二有三，不得為一。故在陰之時而不見為陰之功，在陽之時而不見為陽之力，自然而有陰陽。自然無所營為，此則道之謂也，故言之謂道。以數言之謂之一，以體言之謂之無，以物得開通謂之道，以微妙不測謂之神，以應機變化謂之易。總而言之，皆虛無之謂也。聖人以人事名之，隨其義理以立稱號。」釋曰：若以陰陽變易能生萬物，即是邪因。而注及疏皆云一者無也，故是無因。故云若計一為虛無，自然則亦無因也。以虛無亦通邪因，故致「亦」言。

Regarding the commentary’s "Taking the Supreme Ultimate as the cause," and so on: the second part is judging the meaning. It means that if one uses the Supreme Ultimate as the cause, this posits non-being as [producing] being, which is also a false cause. Regarding the commentary's section beginning with "If one says that one yin...": this comprehensively shows both false cause and no cause. The Yi states: "One yin and one yang is what is called the Dao; the unfathomability of yin and yang is what is called the spiritual." Regarding "One yin and one yang is what is called the Dao," the commentary says: "What is the Dao? It is a designation for non-being. There is nowhere it does not permeate, nothing that does not proceed from it; it is figuratively called the Dao. Quiescent and without form, it cannot be made into an image. Only when the function of being reaches its utmost does the efficacy of non-being become manifest; therefore, reaching the point where the spiritual has no direction and change has no body, the Dao can then be seen. Thus, by exhausting changes one exhausts the spiritual, and relying on the spiritual one illuminates the Dao. Although yin and yang are distinct, non-being is the One by which they are treated. In yin it is non-yin, whereby yin is born; in yang it is non-yang, whereby yang is completed. Therefore it says 'one yin and one yang is what is called the Dao.'" Kong's subcommentary says: "(Kong's subcommentary is not by Confucius, but by Kong Yingda.) 'One' means non-being; having neither yin nor yang is precisely what is called the Dao. The reason 'one' can be non-being is that non-being is vacuous non-being, and vacuous non-being is the Supreme Ultimate. It cannot be differentiated; it is uniquely One and nothing else, so 'one' is taken to be non-being. If there were objective realms, then there would be mutual delineation of this and that, resulting in two and three, which could not be One. Therefore, in the time of yin one does not see the efficacy of being yin, and in the time of yang one does not see the power of being yang; yin and yang exist naturally. Being naturally without contrivance is precisely what the Dao means; hence it says 'is what is called the Dao.' In terms of number, it is called 'one'; in terms of essence, it is called 'non-being'; in terms of things being opened and permeated, it is called 'Dao'; in terms of being subtle and unfathomable, it is called 'spiritual'; in terms of responding to situations and transforming, it is called 'change.' Summing them up, they are all designations for vacuous non-being. The sages named it according to human affairs, establishing designations in accordance with its principles." Explanation: If one takes the change and transformation of yin and yang as being able to generate the myriad things, that is a false cause. Yet both the commentary and subcommentary state that the "One" is non-being; therefore it is [the view of] no cause. Thus it says: if one posits the One as vacuous non-being, and nature, then it is also [the view of] no cause. Because vacuous non-being can also be interpreted as a false cause, it uses the word "also."