大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 29.29

29.29

疏「身與煩惱互為依止展轉無窮」，即《涅槃》四十「納衣梵志問言：『如瞿曇說：無量世中作善不善，未來還得善不善身。是義不然。何以故？如瞿曇說：因煩惱故獲得是身。若因煩惱獲得身者，身為在先？煩惱在先？若煩惱在先，誰之所作？住在何處？若身在先，云何說言因煩惱得？是故若言煩惱在先，是則不可；若身在先，是亦不可；若言一時，是亦不可。先後一時義俱不可，是故我說一切諸法皆有自性，不從因緣。』」下經答云：「善男子！汝言身為在先、煩惱在先者，是義不然。何以故？若我當說身在先者，汝可難言：汝亦同我身不在先。何因緣故而作是難？善男子？一切眾生身及煩惱俱無先後，一時而有。雖一時而有，要因煩惱而得有身，終不因身有煩惱也。」釋曰：上有三關先後一時。佛捨前後而用一時，恐難一時，故自遮云：汝意若謂如人二眼一時而得，不相因待，左不因右、右不因左，煩惱及身亦如是者。是義不然。何以故？世間眼見炷之與明雖復一時，明要因炷，終不因明而有炷也。釋曰：此佛一答一時因緣二義並成，故今疏云「身與煩惱互為依止」，互為依止言即俱時義，非為因身有煩惱也。謂因煩惱而得有身，能生煩惱，復依身住。亦不應難：未有身時煩惱依何？故云互依，二互因依展轉無際。若證滅理因惑不生，惑既不生身從何得？非唯身滅證於不生，展轉之見亦皆寂滅。

Regarding the commentary's statement, "The body and the afflictions serve as reciprocal supports, endlessly unfolding": this draws upon Nirvāṇa Sūtra, fascicle forty, where "a patched-robed mendicant asked, saying: 'As Gautama has said: In immeasurable lifetimes one performs good and non-good deeds, and in the future one again receives good and non-good bodies. This meaning is not correct. Why? As Gautama has said: Due to afflictions, one obtains this body. If one obtains the body due to afflictions, is the body prior, or are the afflictions prior? If the afflictions are prior, by whom were they produced, and where do they reside? If the body is prior, how can it be said that it is obtained due to afflictions? Therefore, to say that the afflictions are prior is untenable; to say that the body is prior is also untenable; to say that they are simultaneous is also untenable. Prior, posterior, or simultaneous—the meaning in all cases is untenable. Therefore, I say that all dharmas have an intrinsic nature, and do not arise from causes and conditions.'" The subsequent sūtra passage answers, saying: "Good man! What you say about whether the body is prior or the afflictions are prior is not correct. Why? If I were to say that the body is prior, you could challenge me, saying: 'You, like me, should hold that the body is not prior.' For what reason do you make this objection? Good man! The body and afflictions of all sentient beings are without priority or posteriority; they exist simultaneously. Although they exist simultaneously, it is necessarily due to afflictions that the body exists; it is never due to the body that afflictions exist." The explanation says: The above contains three hurdles: prior, posterior, and simultaneous. The Buddha rejected prior and posterior and adopted the simultaneous. Fearing that simultaneity might be challenged, he therefore preempted it himself, saying: If you think that just as a person's two eyes are obtained simultaneously and do not depend on each other—the left not depending on the right, and the right not depending on the left—and that afflictions and the body are also like this, this meaning is not correct. Why? The world sees that although the wick and the light are simultaneous, the light must depend on the wick; it is never due to the light that the wick exists. The explanation says: With this single answer of the Buddha, both meanings—simultaneity and conditioned arising—are established. Therefore, the present commentary says "the body and afflictions serve as reciprocal supports"; the phrase "reciprocal supports" expresses precisely the meaning of simultaneity, not that afflictions exist because of the body. That is, due to afflictions the body is obtained, which can produce afflictions, which again abide dependent on the body. Nor should one object: when the body does not yet exist, on what do the afflictions rely? Therefore it says "reciprocal support"; the two mutually cause and support each other, unfolding without limit. If one realizes the principle of cessation, delusion does not arise as a cause; once delusion does not arise, from where could the body be obtained? Not only is the body eliminated and non-arising realized, but views of endless unfolding are also entirely stilled.