大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 56.32

56.32

疏「此但舉法相」下，第二辯違順。先縱成、後「若望」下辯有違。先破秤喻、後破明闇。明闇同喻極似於法，理則無違，故先印許。後「到與不到」下，但就無性理破，三論廣說。《中論．三相品》中，小乘被破，大生小生二互相生。彼便救云：本生生時能生生故。引喻云：如燈能自照，亦能照於彼。生法亦如是，自生亦生彼。論主破云：燈中自無闇住處，亦無闇破闇乃名照，無闇則無照。意云：明中無闇、闇中無明，明既無闇，為何所破，彼便救云：具足之燈無闇可破，初生之燈明體未全，則有闇破。故復破云：云何燈生時，而能破於闇？此燈初生時，不能及於闇。意云：初生名半生半未生。未生之半，此半無明，亦不能破；已生之半；此半無闇；亦無所破。彼便救云：何用及闇，但使能破。故復破云：燈若不及闇，而能破闇者，燈在於此間，應破一切闇。又反並云：若燈能自照，亦能照於彼；闇亦能自闇，亦能闇於彼。釋曰：今闇不能闇於彼，明知是燈不能破闇。由依此義，故上疏云「雖則相傾」，意云：而明闇理別，明能破闇、闇不破明故。《涅槃》第二十九亦同於此，以燈不破闇，喻上毘鉢舍那不破煩惱。

On the commentary's "This merely cites the characteristics of phenomena" and below: second, analyzing conflict and conformity. First granting it to establish it, and later from "If with regard to" and below analyzing that there is conflict. First refuting the balance-scale analogy, and later refuting light and darkness. The analog of light and darkness is extremely similar to the phenomenon, and in principle there is no conflict, so it is first endorsed. Later, from "Arriving and not arriving" and below, it simply refutes it on the principle of having no intrinsic nature, as extensively explained in the Sanlun. In the "Chapter on the Three Characteristics" of the Madhyamakaśāstra, the Hīnayāna was refuted: the primary production and secondary production produce each other. They then rescued their position, saying: "When the root production produces, it is able to produce secondary production." They cited an analogy: "Just as a lamp can illuminate itself, and can also illuminate other things; the phenomenon of production is also like this: it produces itself and also produces other things." The author of the treatise refuted this, saying: "Within the lamp itself there is no dwelling place for darkness; nor is there darkness where it is. Destroying darkness is what is called illumination; where there is no darkness, there is no illumination." The meaning is: within light there is no darkness, and within darkness there is no light; since within light there is no darkness, what is there to be destroyed? They then rescued it, saying: "A fully complete lamp has no darkness to destroy, but when the lamp is first arising, the essence of its light is not yet complete, so there is darkness to destroy." Therefore he refuted it again: "How could a lamp, while arising, be able to destroy darkness? When this lamp first arises, it cannot reach darkness." The meaning is: "first arising" means half-arisen and half-not-arisen. As for the unarisen half, this half has no light and also cannot destroy; as for the already arisen half, this half has no darkness and also has nothing to destroy. They then rescued it, saying: "Why is there any need to reach darkness? It only needs to be able to destroy it." Therefore he refuted it again: "If a lamp, without reaching darkness, were able to destroy darkness, then a lamp situated here should destroy all darkness." Furthermore, he reversed the parallel, saying: "If a lamp can illuminate itself and can also illuminate other things, darkness should also be able to darken itself and also darken other things." The explanation says: Now, darkness cannot darken other things; know clearly that the lamp cannot destroy darkness. Depending on this meaning, the commentary above said "although they undermine each other," the meaning being: yet the principles of light and darkness are distinct; light can destroy darkness, but darkness does not destroy light. The twenty-ninth fascicle of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] is also identical to this, using the lamp not destroying darkness to analogize the above vipaśyanā not destroying afflictions.