大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 67.29

67.29

疏「當力無力」下，文中三：初標牒、二「謂此三」下疏釋論、三「如是窮究」下結觀。二中三：一釋力無力、二「以斯三際」下釋信入依義、三「化中」下釋化勝。言「籠取三際方顯化勝」，亦是《瑜伽》緣起差別。故《瑜伽》云「緣起差別云何？謂於前際無知等。如經廣說：於前際無知云何？謂於過去諸行等起不如理分別，謂我於過去為曾有耶？為曾無耶？曾何體性？曾何種類？所有無知等。」亦即《俱舍》云「說前後中際，為遣他愚惑。」故彼論云「契經何故唯說有情故有上偈？釋云：世尊為遣三際愚惑，故說緣起唯約有情。問：如何有情前際愚惑？謂於前際生如是疑：我於過去世為曾有非有：何等我曾有：云何我曾有。」釋曰：此有三疑，初疑我有無；二疑我體性為即蘊我、離蘊我耶；三疑我差別，為當常我無常我耶？「問：如何有情後際愚惑？答：謂於後際，生如是疑：我於未來世為當有非有？何等我當有？云何我當有？」釋曰：三疑如前，但曾當有異耳。「問：如何有情中際愚惑？答：謂於中際，生如是疑：何等是我？此我云何？我誰所有？我當有誰？」釋曰：此有四疑。何等是我者，疑我自性也。此我云何者，疑我差別也。我誰所有者，疑我因也，謂此現在我，過去誰因所有也。我當有誰，疑我果也，謂我當有誰果也。「為除如是三際愚惑故，經唯說有情緣起。以契經說『苾芻諦聽！若有苾芻於諸緣起已生諸法，能以如實正慧觀見，彼必不於三際愚惑，謂我過去為曾有非有等。』」釋曰：大小論殊，其旨皆一。今三際無我，斯惑自亡，故以三際化彼凡夫，除其我愚，信入無我、修無我行，為化之勝。

Regarding the Commentary's line beginning with "The presence or absence of power": within the text there are three parts: first, citing the phrase; second, from "This means these three" onward, the commentary explaining the treatise; third, from "Thoroughly investigating in this manner" onward, concluding the contemplation. In the second there are three parts: 1. explaining the presence and absence of power; 2. from "By these three periods" onward, explaining the meaning of the basis for faithful entry; 3. from "Within transformation" onward, explaining superiority in transformation. The statement "encompassing the three periods only then reveals superiority in transformation" is also the distinction of dependent origination in the *Yogācāra*. Thus the *Yogācāra* says: "What is the distinction of dependent origination? It refers to ignorance regarding the prior period and so forth. As the sūtra explains in detail: What is ignorance regarding the prior period? It refers to giving rise to improper conceptualization regarding past formative forces and so forth, thinking: 'Did I exist in the past? Or did I not exist? What was my essential nature? What kind of being was I?'—whatever ignorance there is, and so forth." This is also what the *Kośa* says: "Speaking of the prior, posterior, and middle periods is to dispel others' delusion." Thus that treatise states: "Why do the sūtras only speak of sentient beings, which is why there is the above verse? Explanation: The World-Honoured One spoke of dependent origination solely with reference to sentient beings in order to dispel delusion regarding the three periods. Question: How are sentient beings deluded regarding the prior period? It refers to giving rise to such doubts regarding the prior period: 'Did I exist or not exist in past lifetimes? What kind of self did I have? How was my self?'" Explanation: Here there are three doubts: first, doubting the existence or non-existence of the self; second, doubting the essential nature of the self—whether the self is identical with the aggregates or separate from the aggregates; third, doubting the differentiation of the self—whether it is a permanent self or an impermanent self. "Question: How are sentient beings deluded regarding the posterior period? Answer: It refers to giving rise to such doubts regarding the posterior period: 'Will I exist or not exist in future lifetimes? What kind of self will I have? How will my self be?'" Explanation: The three doubts are as before, differing only in past and future. "Question: How are sentient beings deluded regarding the middle period? Answer: It refers to giving rise to such doubts regarding the middle period: 'What am I? How is this self? To whom do I belong? Who will belong to me?'" Explanation: Here there are four doubts. "What am I?" doubts the intrinsic nature of the self. "How is this self?" doubts the differentiation of the self. "To whom do I belong?" doubts the cause of the self; that is, from what cause in the past does this present self come? "Who will belong to me?" doubts the fruit of the self; that is, what fruit will belong to me in the future? "In order to eliminate such delusion regarding the three periods, the sūtras speak only of the dependent origination of sentient beings. For the sūtra states: 'Monks, listen attentively! If there is a monk who can see with correct wisdom as it truly is the phenomena that have already arisen through dependent origination, he will certainly not be deluded regarding the three periods, thinking: "Did I exist or not exist in the past?" and so forth.'" Explanation: Although the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna treatises differ, their import is entirely one. Now, since the three periods are devoid of a self, these delusions naturally perish; therefore, using the three periods to transform those ordinary beings, eliminate their ignorance of self, and cause them to faithfully enter selflessness and practice the conduct of selflessness constitutes superiority in transformation.