[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) › 66.32 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 66.32 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 66.32 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [66.32](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.66.32) 疏「此中且依隣近」下，第三結例無方。亦《唯識論》意。於中二：先舉論文；後「以其逆順」下，即疏釋成。然其論中乃有四重：一依隣近則異隔越，或唯越一、越二、越多。二依順次則異逆次，唯將無明作行之緣，不以行為無明緣等。三依不相雜亂異於雜亂。若《集論》說「以無明望行乃取無明，其中行種而為無明，故是雜亂。」四依實緣起說者異於假說，如向無明俱時業之習氣，實是行種，假說無明。後之二義，大同小異。從「異此相望為緣不定」者，即異上四義，是向鈔中所異是也，既異隔越等故。疏云「以其逆順各有次第及超間故」，且約第一隔越者，如無明與識等五及有，但一增上，唯能生起彼種子故。無明與愛取老死為二緣，謂所緣緣、增上緣。餘一切緣，準此可知。二約逆次者，亦有隣次、隔越，今合說之。老死與生愛取行無明為二緣，謂所緣、增上緣，餘但增上。三若相雜亂，有二：一順、二逆。順中有隣次、隔越。隣次如《對法》，前無明望行是也。隔越與前實緣不殊，亦約識等五種而說。若約當生，隨其所應。逆次之中，有隣、有間，此應思準。上約實緣起說，此約增上說，然有遠近，乃至諸支一一應作。然此中識等五，依當起位，諸支隔越、逆次、超間相雜為緣，一一思準可解，不繁廣說。 > From the commentary's "Here, this is merely based on proximity" downward is the third \[section\], concluding with an analogy of boundless applicability. This is also the intention of the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi. Therein are two: first, it cites the treatise text; later, from "because their forward and reverse" downward, the commentary explains and establishes it. Yet in that treatise there are four tiers: First, being based on proximity is distinguished from skipping across, whether skipping just one, skipping two, or skipping many. Second, being based on forward order is distinguished from reverse order, only taking ignorance as a condition for volitional formations, not taking volitional formations as a condition for ignorance, and so forth. Third, being based on non-confusion is distinguished from confusion. As when the Samuccaya states: "Taking ignorance with respect to volitional formations selects the seed of volitional formations within ignorance to be ignorance, and hence it is confused." Fourth, being spoken of based on actual dependent origination is distinguished from nominal explanation, such as the aforementioned habit-energy of karma concomitant with ignorance, which in reality is the seed of volitional formations, but nominally called ignorance. The latter two meanings are broadly the same with minor differences. The phrase "different from this, in relation to one another their serving as conditions is indeterminate" refers to differing from the above four meanings, which is precisely what was distinguished in the preceding commentary notes, since it differs from skipping across and so forth. The commentary says: "Because their forward and reverse each have sequential order and skipping over intervals." First, with reference to the first, skipping across: for instance, ignorance with respect to the five starting with consciousness and with respect to becoming has only an empowering \[condition\], because it can only generate their seeds. Ignorance with respect to craving, clinging, and aging-and-death has two conditions, namely the objective condition and the empowering condition. All remaining conditions can be known by following this. Second, with reference to reverse order, there are also adjacent sequences and skipping across, which are now explained together. Aging-and-death with respect to birth, craving, clinging, volitional formations, and ignorance has two conditions, namely the objective and empowering conditions; with the rest, it is only empowering. Third, if they are confused, there are two: first, forward; second, reverse. In the forward, there are adjacent sequences and skipping across. Adjacent sequence is like that in the Abhidharmasamuccaya, which is the aforementioned ignorance with respect to volitional formations. Skipping across does not differ from the previous actual conditions, and is also spoken of in terms of the five seeds of consciousness and so forth. If spoken of in terms of future arising, it is according to its proper application. In the reverse order, there are adjacent and intervening; this should be inferred through reflection. The above is spoken of in terms of actual dependent origination, while this is spoken of in terms of the empowering \[condition\]; yet there are distant and close, and one should apply this to each and every link. However, here the five starting with consciousness are based on their state of future arising; with the various links skipping across, in reverse order, and leaping across intervals being mixed as conditions, each can be understood through reflection, so they need not be set forth at length. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 66.31](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.66.31) - [Next: 66.33](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.66.33) - [Up: 66](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.66) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.66.32) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.66.32](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.66.32) · Pramāṇa