大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 67.39

67.39

疏「二約因緣形奪」者，即就前計，以因為自、以緣為他而顯理也。然《對法》初散釋，亦以破自為先，故云「又有差別。謂待眾緣，故非自作；雖有眾緣，無種子不生，故非他作；彼俱無作用，故非共作；種子及眾緣皆有功能，故非無因生。是故如是說，自種有故不從他等，一如今疏。」釋曰：初句以自破他。如於外法，以穀子為自、水等為他。內法，識種為自、業種增上緣為他。若無種子，決不生果，故不他生。次句以他破自，故云待眾緣故非自作。次無作用故不共生，即以和合無性破共。次有功能故非無因者，以共破無因。言「論解同此」者，今取論解同《對法》也，如下釋文中辨。彼論結云「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。」

The commentary states: 'Second, with respect to the mutual deprivation of causes and conditions': this means that based on the previous reckoning, one takes cause as self and conditions as other to reveal the principle. However, the initial dispersed explanation of the Abhidharmasamuccaya also takes refuting self as primary; hence it says: 'Furthermore, there is a distinction: depending on manifold conditions, they are not self-made; although there are manifold conditions, without seeds they do not arise, and thus they are not other-made; both of them lack activity, and thus they are not made by both; seeds and manifold conditions all have efficacy, and thus they are not uncaused arising. Therefore it is said in this way: because one's own seeds exist, they are not from other, and so forth, exactly as in the present commentary.' Explanation: The first phrase refutes other by means of self. As in external dharmas, taking the grain seed as self and water and so forth as other. In internal dharmas, consciousness seeds are self, and karmic seeds as sovereign conditions are other. If there are no seeds, an effect will definitely not arise; therefore it does not arise from other. The next phrase refutes self by means of other; hence it says that depending on manifold conditions, they are not self-made. Next, because of lacking activity they do not arise from both: this uses combination lacking nature to refute both. Next, because of having efficacy they are not causeless: this uses both to refute causelessness. The statement 'The treatise's explanation is identical to this' means taking the treatise's explanation to be identical with the Abhidharmasamuccaya, as discerned below in the explanatory text. That treatise concludes: 'If the principle of dependent origination being neither self nor other dispels both phrases, it is still extremely profound. How much more so when universally negating the four phrases; therefore dependent origination is most supremely profound.'