大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 67.40

67.40

疏「若爾」下，釋妨揀濫。古人多以非無因是從因生，故為此問答，引《中論》證。唯證假他破自、以自破他等，已如前說。故此論難見，意云：汝立自性而能生者，不合更假其餘因緣。若有自性而復假緣，則此自性應在緣中。今水土緣中無穀自性，明不自生。疏「下二句例然」者，即以無作用破共，非立無作用生。以共破無因，非立共也。此別顯無生義，故令審詳，使物莫濫。若顯甚深，次下當說。

In the commentary, from 'If so' downward, it resolves objections and eliminates confusion. The ancients mostly took 'not causeless' to mean 'arising from causes'; hence this question and answer was formulated, citing the Madhyamakaśāstra as proof. It only proves using other to refute self, using self to refute other, and so forth, as stated before. Therefore this treatise's objection shows the intent: if you establish that intrinsic nature can produce, it should not further rely on remaining causes and conditions. If it has an intrinsic nature and yet relies on conditions, then this intrinsic nature should abide within conditions. Now, within the conditions of water and earth there is no intrinsic nature of grain; this clarifies that it does not arise from self. The commentary's 'The lower two phrases follow this by analogy' means using lack of activity to refute both, not establishing arising through lack of activity; and using both to refute causelessness, not establishing both. This individually reveals the meaning of non-arising; therefore, one is made to examine it closely so that people are not confused. As for revealing the profound, it will be explained immediately below.