大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 31.25

31.25

疏「是故虛妄緣起」下，第三結示緣起深旨。然此正結緣起相由門，兼結上因明立量。以立量中亦說不相知為宗故，即三義中初義。言「現文但有初後二意」者，全取一偈即是初意，唯取不相知言即是後意。其第二意，至後五偈答本難中方用斯義。疏「言諸法者」下，第三委釋經文。言「果從因生」等者，上取義便，但因無力說果無體；今欲盡理，故具舉之，則上句諸法通於因果。於中，先以因緣門明因果俱無體。從「因無性故，何有感果之用」下，以上無體釋成因果無用。體尚不立，用安得存？從「又互相待」下，以相待門明無體用。先明因果無用，故云無力；後「以他為自」下明因果無體。既全攬他，故無自體。疏「今初喻中」下，疏文有四：一釋喻、二釋法、三對問會通、四傍顯水義。初中三重，即為三別。初唯流中，文有六段：一標章、二別示不相知相、三結示正理、四引他證成、五別釋前後二字、六簡定不相知理。今初，可知。然此偈文，晉經云「譬如駛水流，水流無絕已，二俱不相知，諸法亦如是。」今文小異，義旨無違。

Regarding the Commentary's statement starting with "Therefore, in false conditioned origination": this is third, a concluding explanation of the profound import of conditioned origination. Now, this directly concludes the approach of conditioned origination based on mutual dependence, and concurrently concludes the earlier establishment of a thesis using hetuvidyā (Buddhist logic). Because in establishing the thesis, 'not knowing one another' was also stated as the thesis (pratijñā), it is the first meaning among the three meanings. As for the statement, "The present text has only the first and last two meanings": taking the entire verse constitutes the first meaning, whereas taking only the words 'do not know one another' constitutes the last meaning. Its second meaning is only employed later in the five verses that answer the original challenge. Regarding the Commentary's statement starting with "As for 'all dharmas'": this is third, a detailed explanation of the sūtra text. As for the phrase "the fruit arises from the cause" and so forth: above, for interpretive convenience, it merely stated that the cause is powerless to show that the fruit lacks essence; now, desiring to exhaust the principle, it fully cites them, so that 'all dharmas' in the upper line applies across causes and fruits. Therein, it first uses the approach of cause and conditions to clarify that both cause and fruit lack essence. From "Because the cause is devoid of intrinsic nature, how could there be the function of invoking a fruit?" downward, it explains that cause and fruit lack function on the basis of the above absence of essence. When essence is not even established, how could function remain? From "Furthermore, they are mutually dependent" downward, it clarifies the absence of essence and function by means of the approach of mutual dependence. It first clarifies that cause and fruit lack function, hence it says 'powerless'; later, from "taking the other as the self" downward, it clarifies that cause and fruit lack essence. Since it wholly relies on the other, it lacks self-essence. Regarding the Commentary's statement starting with "Now in the first analogy": the text of the Commentary has four parts: 1. explaining the analogy; 2. explaining the dharma; 3. reconciling them in response to the question; 4. secondarily revealing the meaning of water. In the first part there are three levels, which constitute three divisions. In the first, which concerns only the flow, the text has six passages: 1. setting out the heading; 2. separately revealing the characteristics of not knowing one another; 3. concluding with the correct principle; 4. citing other texts for corroboration; 5. separately explaining the two characters 'before' and 'after'; 6. determining the principle of not knowing one another. Now the first is clear. Regarding this verse text, the Jin translation of the sūtra states: "Just as a swift stream flows, / The flow of water never ceases, / Yet the two do not know each other; / All dharmas are also like this." The present text differs slightly, but its purport does not diverge.