大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 66.19

66.19

疏「三觀取意」下，第二總結，由大同故，得引為證。「諸德」下，結彈。然自因他因，即《俱舍》等此有彼有、此生彼生。《俱舍》第九云「何故世尊說前二句（此問也）？論答云：謂依此有彼有、此生彼生，於緣起決定故。如餘處說：依無明有，諸行得有，非離無明可有諸行。又為顯示諸支轉生，謂依此支有，彼支得有。由彼支生故，餘支得生。又為顯示三際轉生，謂前際有中際得有，由中際生後際得生。又為顯示親轉二緣，謂有無明無間生行，或展轉力諸行方生。有餘師說：如是二句為破無因常因二論，謂非無因諸行可有，亦非由常自性我等無生因故諸行得生。若爾，便成前句無用。但由後句此生彼生，能具破前無因常因等。故軌範師釋此二句為顯因果。因果不斷及生者為有，釋為顯因果住生（云云）。」釋曰：上皆論文，今當會釋。此即《雜集》等，及上經中是事有，故是事有。是事起故是事起，起即生義，已如前釋。今且會二因。前支有故後支得有，即自因義，以要不離前方有後故。此生彼生，即他因義，此支生時彼支別故。故前第四釋此有彼有為親因，此生彼生為展轉因。展轉者，即是他義。要從前支，即是自義。若望大悲隨順觀，則前第五為破二因，義甚相順。以自因破無因，酪要因乳故。以他因破常因，必假他因非自性等。故是則先破二因，未為失意。既今經意，順上論意自他昭然，則諸古德非獨闕尋本論，亦不見於他論之意旨。

Regarding the commentary's statement, "Taking the meaning of the three contemplations": This is the second part, a general conclusion: because of their great concordance, they can be cited as proof. From "The various virtuous teachers" downward, a concluding critique is given. Now, "own cause" and "other cause" are precisely "when this exists, that exists; when this arises, that arises" in the Abhidharmakośa and other texts. The ninth fascicle of the Abhidharmakośa states: "Why did the World-Honoured One speak the preceding two phrases? (This is the question.) The treatise answers: It means that by relying on 'when this exists, that exists; when this arises, that arises', dependent origination is definite. As stated elsewhere: 'Relying on the existence of avidyā, the formations (saṃskāra) can exist; apart from avidyā, formations cannot exist.' It is also to reveal the sequential arising of the limbs: relying on the existence of this limb, that limb can exist; due to the arising of that limb, other limbs can arise. It is also to reveal the sequential arising of the three periods of time: when the past exists, the present can exist; due to the arising of the present, the future can arise. It is also to reveal the two conditions of direct and indirect sequential development: avidyā immediately generates formations, or through indirect power formations only then arise. Other masters say: These two phrases are spoken to refute the two doctrines of causelessness and eternal cause: formations cannot exist without a cause, nor can formations arise due to an unproduced cause such as an eternal nature or self. If that were so, the former phrase would become useless. Only through the subsequent phrase, 'when this arises, that arises', can one fully refute the former causelessness, eternal cause, and so on. Therefore, the ācārya explained these two phrases as revealing cause and effect. Cause and effect being uninterrupted, and arising being existence, he explained them as revealing the abiding and arising of cause and effect (and so forth)." The explanation states: The above is all the treatise text; now they will be collated and explained. This is precisely what is in the Abhidharmasamuccaya and the sūtra above: "Because this exists, that exists; because this arises, that arises." Arising means birth, as already explained before. For now, let us collate the two causes: The preceding limb existing, the subsequent limb can exist—this is the meaning of own cause, because only by not departing from the preceding can there be the subsequent. "When this arises, that arises" is the meaning of other cause, because when this limb arises, that limb is distinct. Therefore, the fourth section above explained "when this exists, that exists" as the direct cause, and "when this arises, that arises" as the indirect cause. "Indirect" is precisely the sense of "other". "Must follow from the preceding limb" is precisely the sense of "self". In terms of the contemplation of conforming with Great Compassion, the fifth section above's refutation of the two causes accords very well with this meaning. Using own cause refutes causelessness, because curd must depend on milk. Using other cause refutes an eternal cause, because it must depend on an other cause, not an inherent nature or the like. Thus, first refuting the two causes does not fail the intended meaning. Since the intention of the present sūtra conforms with the intention of the treatise above and self and other are brightly manifest, the former virtuous masters not only failed to investigate the root treatise, but also failed to perceive the purport of other treatises.