大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 64.39

64.39

疏「第二別明觀相」等者，疏文有三：初總顯深廣、二舉經辯深、三依論科釋。今初，文三：初標舉深旨、二引論略開、三融通無礙。今初，疏云「然緣起深義佛教所宗」等者，自古諸德多云：三教之宗，儒則宗於五常，道宗自然，佛宗因緣。然老子雖云「道生一，一生二，二生三，三生萬物。」似有因緣，而非正因緣。言道生一者，道即虛無自然故。彼又云「人法地，地法天，天法道，道法自然。」謂虛通曰道，即自然而然。是則雖有因緣，亦成自然之義耳。佛法雖有無師智、自然智，而是常住真理要假緣顯，則亦因緣矣。故教說三世修因契果，非彼無因惡因故。《楞伽經》「大慧白佛言：『佛說常不思議，彼諸外道亦說常不思議，何以異耶？』佛言：『彼諸外道無有常不思議，以無因故。我說常不思議有因，因於內證，豈得同耶？』」是則真常亦因緣顯。《淨名》云「說法不有亦不無，以因緣故諸法生。」《法華》亦云「諸佛兩足尊，知法常無性，佛種從緣起，是故說一乘。」下經云「一切諸法，因緣為本。」《中論》云「未曾有一法，不從因緣生。是故一切法，無不是空者。」則真空中道亦因緣矣。若爾，《涅槃》十六云「我觀諸行悉皆無常。云何知耶？以因緣故。若一切法從緣生者，則知無常。是諸外道無有一法不從緣生，是故無常。則外道有因緣矣。」釋曰：此明外道在因緣內，執於緣相以為常住，是故破之言無常耳。今明教詮因緣妙理，具常無常，豈得同耶？況復宗者從多分說，所以因緣是所宗，尚不應致疑。

On the commentary passage "Second, individually clarifying the characteristics of contemplation" and so forth: the commentary's text has three parts: first, generally revealing their depth and breadth; second, citing the sūtra to distinguish their depth; third, relying on the treatise to outline and explain. Now, in the first, there are three parts: first, stating the profound principle; second, citing the treatise to briefly unfold it; third, merging them in unobstructed harmony. Now, in the first, the commentary says: "However, the profound meaning of dependent origination is the central tenet of the Buddha's teaching..." and so forth. Since ancient times, many worthy figures have said: as for the tenets of the three teachings, Confucianism takes the five constants as its tenet, Daoism takes spontaneity (ziran) as its tenet, and Buddhism takes causes and conditions as its tenet. Now, although Laozi said, "The Way generates one, one generates two, two generates three, three generates the ten thousand things," which seems to have causes and conditions, it is not correct causes and conditions. In saying "the Way generates one," the Way is empty non-being and spontaneity. He also said, "Humans model themselves on Earth, Earth models itself on Heaven, Heaven models itself on the Way, and the Way models itself on spontaneity." That which is empty and unhindered is called the Way, which is spontaneously so. Thus, although it has causes and conditions, it also becomes the meaning of spontaneity. Although the Buddha's Dharma has uninstructed wisdom and spontaneous wisdom, the eternally abiding true principle must rely on conditions to be revealed, and thus it also consists in causes and conditions. Therefore, the teaching speaks of cultivating causes across the three periods of time to tally with the fruit, and not their causelessness or evil causes. In the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra, "Mahāmati addressed the Buddha: 'The Buddha speaks of the eternal and inconceivable; those non-Buddhists also speak of the eternal and inconceivable. How do they differ?' The Buddha said: 'Those non-Buddhists do not have the eternal and inconceivable, because it is without cause. I say that the eternal and inconceivable has a cause, caused by inner realization; how could they be the same?'" Thus, the truly eternal is also revealed through causes and conditions. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: "Expounding the Dharma as neither existing nor non-existing, because of causes and conditions all dharmas arise." The Lotus Sūtra also says: "The Buddhas, the Most Honoured of Two-Footed Beings, know that dharmas are ever devoid of intrinsic nature; the Buddha-seed arises from conditions, and therefore they expound the One Vehicle." The sūtra below says: "All dharmas take causes and conditions as their root." The Madhyamakaśāstra says: "There has never been a single dharma that does not arise from causes and conditions. Therefore, among all dharmas, there is none that is not empty." Thus, true emptiness and the middle way are also causes and conditions. If so, then the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, fascicle sixteen, says: "I contemplate all conditioned things as entirely impermanent. How is this known? Through causes and conditions. If all dharmas arise from conditions, then one knows they are impermanent. There is not a single dharma among these non-Buddhists that does not arise from conditions; therefore they are impermanent. Thus non-Buddhists have causes and conditions." Explanation: this clarifies that non-Buddhists, being within causes and conditions, cling to conditional characteristics as being eternally abiding; therefore it refutes them, saying they are impermanent. Now it clarifies that the teaching explains the marvelous principle of causes and conditions as possessing both the permanent and the impermanent; how could they be identical? Furthermore, a tenet is spoken of in terms of the predominant part; therefore, that causes and conditions are the tenet should not give rise to doubt.