大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 37.68

37.68

疏「問：加之與定」下，第二辨加定先後。於中二：先問、後「古人云」下答。答中三：初敘昔、二辨非、三申正義。疏「此解亦違」下，第二辨非。先明違文、後「若言同時」下復辨違理。於中又二：先正辨、後「亦不應」下遮救。恐彼救云：《俱舍論》云「俱有互為果，如大相所相，心於心隨轉。」釋曰：俱有者，俱時而有也。互為果者，釋俱有因義。論云「若法更互為士用果，彼法更互為俱有因。」下二句指法體，此有三類：一如大者，謂四大種互相假藉生所造色，故互相望為俱有因。二相所相者，相即生等四大相也。此四大相與所相法更互為果，謂此能相相所相故，復由所相能相轉故，故互為果。三心於心隨轉者，謂心王與心所隨轉法，亦更互為果。釋曰：謂彼救云俱有因果既得互為，加定互為云何不可？故今遮云：彼三類法皆不相離，如相所相，所相無能相不成有為，能相無所相無有依止。今或有加而不入定，或時入定不必須加，許二相離，云何成例？

Regarding the Commentary's statement "Question: Regarding empowerment and samādhi..." onwards: the second part discerns the sequence of empowerment and samādhi. Therein are two: first, the question; later, under "Ancient scholars said...", the answer. Within the answer are three: first, recounting the past view; second, discerning its error; third, setting forth the correct doctrine. Regarding the Commentary's statement "This interpretation also contradicts..." onwards: the second part discerns its error. First, it clarifies that it contradicts the text; later, under "If one says they are simultaneous...", it further discerns that it contradicts principle. Within this are again two: first, properly discerning; later, under "Nor should one...", it fends off an attempted defense. Fearing they might defend themselves by saying: the Abhidharmakośa-śāstra states, "Coexistent [factors] are mutual fruits, like the great [elements], characteristics and characterized, and the mind with what conforms to mind." The explanation says: "Coexistent" means existing at the same time. "Mutual fruits" explains the meaning of coexistent cause (sahabhū-hetu). The treatise says: "If dharmas are mutually virile fruits (puruṣakāra-phala), those dharmas are mutually coexistent causes." The lower two lines point to the essences of the dharmas, of which there are three classes: First, "like the great elements": this means the four great elements mutually depend on one another to produce derived matter; therefore, looking at each other, they are coexistent causes. Second, "characteristics and characterized": "characteristics" refers to the four great characteristics such as arising; these four great characteristics and the dharmas characterized are mutually fruits, meaning these active characteristics characterize that which is characterized, and furthermore, due to that which is characterized, the active characteristics operate; hence they are mutual fruits. Third, "mind with what conforms to mind": this means the primary mind and the conforming mental factors are also mutually fruits. The explanation says: this means their attempted defense says, since coexistent causes and effects can be mutual, why can empowerment and samādhi not be mutual? Therefore, it now fends this off, saying: those three classes of dharmas are all inseparable; like characteristics and characterized, if that which is characterized lacks the active characteristics, it does not become conditioned, and if the active characteristics lack that which is characterized, they have no support. Now, sometimes there is empowerment without entering samādhi, or at times entering samādhi does not necessarily require empowerment; granting that the two are separable, how could it form an analogous case?