大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 31.19

31.19

疏「三約名言因就能所依難」等者，標也。即將第二對中能受名言之因，對第一對中所依本識。前以業依識難，今以種依現行難。從「謂前能受報因」下，釋不相知義。但釋受不知心，不解心不知受，故結云「餘義同前」。若具應云：所依心體，若離能依，亦無所依。無所依故，不能相知。疏「四約因緣」等者，取前第二對中所引名言及能引業相對以明。於中，初標也、次「所謂」下出體、後「相待相奪」下釋不相知。言相待者，業無識種，不親辦體。識無業種，不招苦樂。既互相待，則各無自性。言相奪者，以業奪因，唯由業招，故因如虛空。以因奪緣，則唯心為體，故業如虛空。互奪獨立亦不能相知，互奪兩亡無可相知。次言「如不自生等」者，引例以釋。以緣奪因故不自生；以因奪緣故不他生；因緣合辨，相待無性故不共生；互奪雙亡，無因豈生？以此不生類於不知，居然易了。即以因為自、以緣為他、合此為共、離此為無因。互有尚不相知，互無豈能相知？

Regarding the Commentary's statement: “The third questions the supported and the supporting in terms of the cause of nominal conventions,” and so forth, this is the heading. That is, it takes the cause of nominal conventions as the receiving subject from the second pair and contrasts it with the supporting root consciousness from the first pair. Previously, the question was framed in terms of karma depending on consciousness; now, the question is framed in terms of seeds depending on actual functioning (samudācāra). From “That is, the previously mentioned cause capable of receiving retribution” onward, it explains the meaning of mutual non-knowing. It only explains that the receiving subject does not know the mind, without resolving how the mind does not know the receiving subject; hence it concludes, “The remaining meaning is the same as before.” If stated fully, it should say: if the supported essence of the mind were separated from what depends on it, there would also be no supported. Because there is no supported, they cannot know each other. Regarding the Commentary's statement: “The fourth is in terms of cause and condition,” and so forth, this takes the drawn nominal conventions and the karma capable of drawing them from the previous second pair, setting them in contrast to clarify them. Therein, first is the heading; next, from “namely” onward, it brings out their essence; finally, from “mutually dependent and mutually displacing” onward, it explains their mutual non-knowing. Regarding “mutually dependent”: without the seed of consciousness, karma cannot directly produce the substance; without the seed of karma, consciousness cannot invite suffering and joy. Since they depend on each other, they each lack intrinsic nature. Regarding “mutually displacing”: displacing the cause with the condition (karma), since it is solely invited by karma, the cause is like empty space. Displacing the condition with the cause, then mind alone is the substance, so karma is like empty space. When they mutually displace each other and stand alone, they still cannot know each other; when they mutually displace each other and both are negated, there is nothing that can be known. Next, regarding “as in not arising from itself, and so forth,” it cites an analogy to explain. Displacing the cause with the condition, it does not arise from itself; displacing the condition with the cause, it does not arise from other; when cause and condition combine to produce, being mutually dependent without intrinsic nature, it does not arise from both; when they mutually displace and both are negated, how could it arise without a cause? Using this non-arising to illustrate non-knowing, it is obviously easy to understand. That is, take the cause as self, the condition as other, their combination as both, and their separation as without cause. Even when mutually existent, they still do not know each other; when mutually non-existent, how could they possibly know each other?