大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 31.22

31.22

疏「以初二對結趣善惡」者，標也。次云「趣善惡者正由業熏」是第一對，業不知心、心不知業，此對為因。次云「受總報故」即第二對，受不知報、報不知受。初對為因，受第二對報。總報即是趣善惡故。疏「二復以第二及第三對結受生同異」者，鉤取前二對中第二對，即重明受不知報、報不知受。受即名言種，故云初對。以名言種對所生處，謂亦由識種往所生處故。初地云「於三界田中復生苦芽」。「次對以名言種對能依本識」者，即心不知受、受不知心。受即名言種，心即能依本識者，依名言種招現行識故。識為能依，則此心言通因及果。上約因中本識，故為所依；今約果中，故為能依。疏「三復以第三及第四對結苦樂不同及端正醜陋」者，即通以此二對，雙結前二對。言「初對觀現受時」者，即心不知受、受不知心對。謂亦由受因受苦樂體及妍媸故。若無識種本識，此二亦無所依。「次對觀苦樂因及彼妍媸皆由緣令異」者，即因不知緣、緣不知因。「謂損益」下，別示二對之相。由損他業感於苦報、由益他業感於樂報，以嗔恚業感於醜陋、由忍辱業感於端正。此中言因，詺緣為因。此中言果，是別報果。疏「四復以第四及第五對結諸根滿缺」者，此上總明。從「亦由滿業」下，別說其相。滿業即第四對，因不知緣、緣不知因。緣即是業，唯取滿業，由損他眼耳成盲聾等，由益他六根等成六處滿足。次云「又由內根有滿缺故，於分別位了境不同」者，即第五對，智不知境、境不知智。謂智於境有信進念定慧之滿足，則受果中亦具五根明利勝上。若智於境信等隨闕或非深厚，則得果時五根隨缺或成下品。疏「並皆無性」下，上別釋中但出能對所對二種法體，今則總明不相知義，在文易了。意云：並各相依，從緣無性，何有能所熏等而能相知？既不相知，誰令種種？此但約第一直問意結。亦應帶疑云：為是種種？為是一性？結成難云：一性隨於種種則失真諦，種種隨於一性則失俗諦。一性即不相知，亦應結云：種種隨不相知則失俗諦，不相知隨於種種則失真諦等。

Regarding the Commentary's “Concluding the wholesome and unwholesome destinies with the first two pairs,” this is the heading. Next, when it says “Wholesome and unwholesome destinies are precisely due to the perfuming of karma,” this is the first pair: karma does not know mind, and mind does not know karma; this pair is the cause. Next, when it says “Because of receiving total retribution,” this is the second pair: the receiving subject does not know the retribution, and the retribution does not know the receiving subject. The first pair serves as the cause, and receives the retribution of the second pair. Total retribution is precisely the wholesome and unwholesome destinies. Regarding the Commentary's “Second, concluding the sameness and difference of rebirth through the second and third pairs,” this links back to the second pair of the previous two pairs, which re-clarifies that the receiving subject does not know the retribution, and the retribution does not know the receiving subject. The receiving subject is the seeds of nominal conventions; hence it is called the initial pair. Contrasting the seeds of nominal conventions with the place of rebirth means that it is also due to seeds of consciousness that one goes to the place of rebirth. The First Ground states: “In the field of the three realms, the sprout of suffering is born again.” Regarding “The next pair contrasts the seeds of nominal conventions with the supporting root consciousness,” this is mind not knowing the receiving subject, and the receiving subject not knowing mind. The receiving subject is the seeds of nominal conventions; the mind being the supporting root consciousness means that, relying on the seeds of nominal conventions, the functioning consciousness is invited. If consciousness is the supported, then this word “mind” applies to both cause and result. Above, it was in terms of the root consciousness in the causal stage, and thus served as the supported; now, it is in terms of the resultant stage, and thus serves as the supporting. Regarding the Commentary's “Third, concluding the differences in suffering and joy, as well as handsomeness and ugliness, through the third and fourth pairs,” this generally uses these two pairs to doubly conclude the previous two pairs. Regarding “The first pair contemplates the time of actual receiving,” this is the pair where mind does not know the receiving subject, and the receiving subject does not know mind. This means that it is also due to the receiving cause that the substance of suffering and joy, as well as beauty and ugliness, are received. If there were no root consciousness of seeds of consciousness, these two would also have nothing to depend upon. Regarding “The next pair contemplates that the causes of suffering and joy and their beauty and ugliness are all caused to differ by conditions,” this is the condition not knowing the cause, and the cause not knowing the condition. From “Namely, harming and benefiting” onward, it specifically shows the characteristics of the two pairs. Due to karma that harms others, one induces painful retribution; due to karma that benefits others, one induces joyful retribution; through karma of anger and hatred, one induces ugliness; through karma of patience, one induces handsomeness. What is called “cause” here is naming the condition as a cause. What is called “result” here is the result of particular retribution. Regarding the Commentary's “Fourth, concluding the completeness and deficiency of the faculties through the fourth and fifth pairs,” the above generally clarifies this. From “It is also due to completing karma” onward, it specifically explains its characteristics. Completing karma is the fourth pair: cause does not know condition, and condition does not know cause. The condition is karma, taking solely completing karma: due to harming others' eyes or ears, one becomes blind, deaf, and so forth; due to benefiting others' six faculties and so forth, one accomplishes the completeness of the six āyatanas. Next, when it says “Furthermore, because the internal faculties have completeness and deficiency, the discernment of perceptual objects in the state of discrimination differs,” this is the fifth pair: cognition does not know the perceptual object, and the perceptual object does not know cognition. That is, if cognition has the completeness of faith, vigor, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom regarding the perceptual object, then in receiving the result, one will also be endowed with five faculties that are sharp, luminous, and superior. If cognition lacks faith and so forth regarding the perceptual object, or if they are not profound and firm, then upon obtaining the result, the five faculties will be correspondingly deficient or of inferior grade. From the Commentary's “They all lack intrinsic nature” onward: above, in the specific explanations, it merely brought out the substances of the two dharmas—the contrasting and the contrasted; now it generally clarifies the meaning of mutual non-knowing, which is easy to understand in the text. The meaning is: they all depend on each other, and arising from conditions they lack intrinsic nature, so how could there be a perfuming and a perfumed that could know each other? Since they do not know each other, who causes them to be diverse? This merely concludes in terms of the intention of the first direct question. It should also carry the doubt: “Are they diverse, or of a single nature?” Concluding into an objection: if the single nature follows the diverse, then the ultimate truth is lost; if the diverse follows the single nature, then the conventional truth is lost. The single nature is precisely non-knowing; it should also be concluded: if the diverse follows non-knowing, then the conventional truth is lost; if non-knowing follows the diverse, then the ultimate truth is lost, and so forth.