[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736) › 43.19 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 43.19 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 43.19 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [43.19](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.43.19) 疏「第二對明不相在」，即不於顛倒內有眾生等。疏「言不離者」，此句牒前。上言不離眾生有顛倒等，明因果相待方得緣成，釋上義也。依似執實，待果成因也；依執似起，待因成果也。上辯前對之是，「非先有」下揀前對之非，即先有先無門。從「因中無果」下，示其正義。以釋經文二句之中，皆先順說正義，後反顯先有之過。初云「因中無果，故倒內無生」者，順說正義也。次「若必」下，反釋揀非，非先有故。遍計是因，因中有果，故遍計中有依他起。從「果中無因故生內無倒」者，順說正義也。「若要令有」下，反釋揀非也。若果有因，有眾生等即有顛倒；今有不倒眾生，故，知果中無有因也。第三對中言「不壞因果能所遍計」者，因即能遍計，果即所遍計。所遍計即依他也。從「由前」下，結歸中道。 > Regarding the Commentary's statement, "The second pair explains that they do not reside within each other": That is, sentient beings do not exist within inverted views, and so forth. Regarding the Commentary's phrase, "The statement 'not separated from'": This clause refers back to the preceding. Above it was said that there are no inverted views separated from sentient beings, clarifying that cause and effect are mutually dependent before conditions can be established; this explains the above meaning. Clinging to the real based on the apparent means awaiting the effect to complete the cause; the apparent arising based on grasping means awaiting the cause to complete the effect. The above clarified the correctness of the preceding pair; from "not existing beforehand" downward, it eliminates the error of the preceding pair—namely, the approach of prior existence and prior non-existence. From "there is no effect within the cause" downward, it demonstrates the correct meaning. In explaining the two phrases of the sūtra text, it first straightforwardly states the correct meaning, and afterward conversely reveals the fault of prior existence. First, the statement "Because there is no effect within the cause, there is no sentient being within inverted view" straightforwardly states the correct meaning. Next, from "if it must be" downward, it conversely explains to eliminate the error, because it does not exist beforehand. The imagined nature is the cause; if there were an effect within the cause, then there would be the dependent nature within the imagined nature. From "because there is no cause within the effect, there is no inverted view within sentient beings," it straightforwardly states the correct meaning. From "if it must be made to exist" downward, it conversely explains to eliminate the error. If the effect had the cause, then where there are sentient beings, there would be inverted views; now, since there are sentient beings who are not inverted, one knows there is no cause within the effect. In the third pair, the statement "Not destroying cause and effect, the grasper and the grasped of the imagined": The cause is the imagining grasper; the effect is what is imagined. What is imagined is precisely the dependent nature. From "owing to the preceding" downward, it concludes by reverting to the Middle Way. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 43.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.43.18) - [Next: 43.20](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.43.20) - [Up: 43](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.43) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.43.19) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.43.19](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.43.19) · Pramāṇa