[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) › 65.38 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 65.38 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 65.38 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [65.38](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.65.38) 疏「今初，一從」下，即第二別釋。初釋無常六義，然此文難解。如從自種子亦待他緣，與第二句從他亦待自，二句何別？故每句中皆有兩義：從自種子，是自生義；亦待他緣，不自生義。下三例之。故《雜集》第四云「又諸法不從自生，亦不從他生，不共不無因生，非不自作他作因緣生，是故甚深。」故不自生亦從自生，二不他生亦從他生，三不共生亦從共因緣生。上三句中皆有二義：若唯自種生，非曰甚深；若唯不自生，亦非甚深故。一句兼二，方曰甚深。正同《中論》因緣所生法，即空即假即中之義。《雜集》釋不自生等自有二義，至第八門當知。下總結云「若緣起理非自非他遣雙句者，猶為甚深。況總亡四句，是故緣起最極甚深。」釋曰：不見此論，《瑜伽》難了故。從自種子，是自生義；亦待他緣，即以他遣自義。二從他者，是他生義；亦待自者，以自遣他義。三俱從者，共生義；無作用者，以無性遣共義。四此二因性非不是有者，以共功能遣無因義。前之三句，有無性緣生二義，故皆有存亡。第四句不立無因故，唯有以共遣無因義耳。五相雖成就而不礙滅。六滅而似停。初之四句，就緣所生法以論甚深。五六二句，以所生法對有為之相以論甚深。前四以是緣生之法，是故無常。後之二句，剎那滅故，是故無常。餘文可知。 > As for the commentary from "Now first, (1) from..." onward: this is the second part, the separate explanations. First, it explains the six meanings of impermanence; however, this text is difficult to understand. For instance, between "from its own seed it also relies on other conditions" and the second clause, "from others it also relies on itself," what is the difference between these two clauses? Therefore, each clause contains two meanings: "From its own seed" is the meaning of arising from self; "also relies on other conditions" is the meaning of not arising from self. The three below are analogous. Therefore, the fourth fascicle of the Samuccaya says: "Furthermore, dharmas do not arise from self, nor do they arise from others, nor from both, nor without a cause; nor is it that they are not produced by causes and conditions made by self and made by others—therefore it is profound." Thus, not arising from self is also arising from self; second, not arising from others is also arising from others; third, not arising from both is also arising from joint causes and conditions. In the above three clauses there are two meanings: If it arose solely from its own seed, it would not be called profound; if it were solely not arising from self, it would also not be profound. Only when one clause combines both is it called profound. This is precisely identical to the meaning in the Madhyamakaśāstra that dharmas produced by causes and conditions are simultaneously empty, provisionally designated, and the middle. The Samuccaya's explanation of not arising from self and so forth inherently possesses two meanings, which should be known when reaching the eighth section. Below it concludes: "If the principle of conditioned arising negates both sides—being neither from self nor from others—it is already profound; how much more so when the four clauses are entirely eliminated! Therefore, conditioned arising is supremely profound." Explanation: Without seeing this treatise, the Yogācārabhūmi would be difficult to understand. "From its own seed" is the meaning of arising from self; "also relies on other conditions" means negating self by means of other. Second, "from other" is the meaning of arising from other; "also relies on self" means negating other by means of self. Third, "from both" is the meaning of arising from both; "lacking any active functioning" means negating both by means of the lack of inherent nature. Fourth, "the nature of these two causes is not non-existent" means negating causelessness by means of their joint efficacy. The preceding three clauses possess the two meanings of existence and lack of inherent nature in conditioned arising, and therefore both have affirmation and negation. Because the fourth clause does not establish causelessness, it only negates causelessness by means of joint \[causes\]. Fifth, although the characteristics are accomplished, they do not obstruct cessation. Sixth, it ceases yet seems to abide. The first four clauses discuss profound depth in terms of dharmas produced by conditions. The fifth and sixth clauses discuss profound depth by contrasting the produced dharmas with the characteristics of conditioned things. The first four, because they are dharmas produced by conditions, are impermanent. The latter two, because they cease moment by moment, are impermanent. The rest of the text can be known. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 65.37](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.65.37) - [Next: 65.39](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.65.39) - [Up: 65](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.65) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.65.38) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.65.38](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.65.38) · Pramāṇa