大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 36.69

36.69

疏「眾生佛性有二種因」者，引文證成，如上已引。疏「今以了因了彼正因」下，結示經文，可知。疏「初一顯無緣了不見正因」下，此釋第一偈。疏文有二：先正釋文、後引難成立。前中三：初正釋經、次揀定二因、後結示喻旨。前中，先釋上半，喻可知。後「下半法合」下，釋合。然有二解：解雖慧莫能了，前義但有二法成見，謂寶與燈以成正因緣因。後義則三法成見，應須加眼以喻於慧。此中法喻合應各四句，謂一有眼無燈不見、二無眼有燈不見、三無眼無燈不見、四有眼有燈則見。則眼為因、燈為緣，因緣合故方得見寶，因緣隨缺則皆不成見。以喻善友為緣如燈，有慧為因如眼，因緣具故方見真性。亦有四句：一者有慧無友不見、二無慧遇友不見、三無慧無友不見、四有慧有友則見。其第四句則是約人，因緣和合亦成了因。今喻前失，故無此句。三句失中唯合初一，其無眼有燈，影在後喻瞽者不見明淨日中，則明因緣互缺不見，況全缺耶？故不明於無眼無燈。

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "The Buddha-nature of sentient beings has two kinds of causes": this cites the text to establish the proof, as already cited above. Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Now, using the revealing cause to reveal that direct cause," and so on: this concludes and indicates the sūtra text, which can be understood. Regarding the Commentary's statement, "The first one reveals that without contributory and revealing [causes], one does not see the direct cause," and so on: this explains the first verse. The text of the Commentary has two parts: first, directly explaining the text; second, citing an objection to establish it. In the first part, there are three: first, directly explaining the sūtra; next, distinguishing and determining the two causes; finally, concluding and indicating the purport of the simile. In the first part, it first explains the first half of the verse, where the simile can be understood. Later, from "The latter half is the dharma-correspondence" onward, it explains the correspondence. However, there are two explanations. Although with wisdom none can comprehend it, in the former meaning, there are only two dharmas that constitute seeing: that is, the jewel and the lamp, to constitute the direct cause and the contributory cause. In the latter meaning, three dharmas constitute seeing: one must add the eye as a simile for wisdom. Here, the dharma, simile, and correspondence should each have four propositions: namely, 1. having eyes but no lamp, one does not see; 2. having no eyes but having a lamp, one does not see; 3. having neither eyes nor a lamp, one does not see; 4. having eyes and having a lamp, one sees. Thus, the eye is the cause, and the lamp is the condition; only when cause and condition unite does one come to see the jewel. If either cause or condition is missing, seeing is not accomplished. This serves as a simile: a good spiritual friend is the condition, like the lamp; having wisdom is the cause, like the eye; only when cause and condition are complete does one see the true nature. There are also four propositions: 1. having wisdom but no spiritual friend, one does not see; 2. having no wisdom but meeting a spiritual friend, one does not see; 3. having neither wisdom nor a spiritual friend, one does not see; 4. having wisdom and having a spiritual friend, one sees. The fourth proposition is in terms of the person: when cause and condition harmonize, it also forms a revealing cause. Now, since it illustrates the previous failure, this proposition is absent. Among the three failure propositions, it only corresponds to the first one; having no eyes but having a lamp is reflected in the later simile of a blind person not seeing the clear and pure sun. This shows that if cause and condition are mutually lacking, one does not see; how much more so if both are entirely lacking? Therefore, it does not explain having neither eyes nor a lamp.