大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 20.18

20.18

疏「二就緣起性」者，一通說因緣之法依他而起，因緣所生無有生故。故經云「一切法無來，是故無有生。以生無有故，滅亦不可得。」二明二義中，「又緣起無性故」者，緣生即無性也。「無性緣起」者，無性即緣性也。前句即因緣故空，此句即無性故有，故引《中論》「以有空義故，一切法得成」，唯證後句也。三顯無性中，若無因緣，不知無性，故論四句推之。「諸法不自生，亦不從他生，不共不無因，是故知無生。」若不推此，安知無生？無生即是生無自性性也。

Regarding the commentary's statement, "Second, in terms of the nature of dependent origination": first, universally speaking, dharmas of causes and conditions arise in dependence on other [factors]; because what is produced by causes and conditions has no arising, the sūtra therefore says: "All dharmas have no coming; therefore they have no arising. Since arising does not exist, ceasing also cannot be attained." Second, in explaining the two meanings, "Furthermore, because dependent origination is without intrinsic nature": conditioned arising is precisely devoid of intrinsic nature. "Dependent origination devoid of intrinsic nature": being devoid of intrinsic nature is precisely the nature of conditions. The former line means empty because of causes and conditions; this line means existent because of lacking intrinsic nature. Hence it cites the Madhyamakaśāstra: "Because there is the meaning of emptiness, all dharmas can be accomplished," which solely proves the latter line. Third, in revealing the non-nature: if there were no causes and conditions, one would not know the absence of intrinsic nature; hence the treatise analyzes with the four propositions: "Dharmas do not arise from themselves, nor do they arise from another, nor from both, nor without cause; therefore one knows there is no arising." If one does not examine this, how could one know non-arising? Non-arising is precisely the nature of arising without intrinsic nature.