大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 67.50

67.50

第九生滅繫縛門。疏「亦名似有若無」者，「生滅繫縛」但順經文，「似有若無」即是經意，故論云「不共生」也。文中，順觀之內有三：初牒經文，徵起共義。二「論云」下，舉論解釋。「非二作」，是標。「但隨順」下，論有三釋，明不共義。三「意謂」下，疏釋論文，即就論三義展轉相承。疏有二節：先合釋前二、後別釋第三。今初。「但行順無明，緣不得不生」，是第一意。既言隨順，故明緣會不得不生，即無生矣。二云何以隨順即得無生？行與無明二互相依無知者故。由上二義，故非自作。第二「若爾」下，別釋第三義，以不住釋上無知。如河中水，湍流奔逝，故無相知。從「此同對法」下，以論證成《對法》，即如前文。又《中論》云「即是過意」。據文即〈因果品〉云「若因眾因緣，而有和合法。和合自不生，云何能生果？」〈如來品〉云「陰合為如來，則無有自性」等，皆其義也。

The ninth gate: Arising, Ceasing, and Bondage. Regarding the commentary's "It is also called seeming to exist yet as if non-existent": "arising, ceasing, and bondage" merely follows the sūtra text, whereas "seeming to exist yet as if non-existent" is the meaning of the sūtra; hence the treatise says, "they do not arise jointly." In the text, within the forward contemplation there are three parts: first, taking up the sūtra text to raise the meaning of "joint"; second, from "The treatise states" downward, adducing the treatise to explain it. "Not made by two" is the proposition. From "merely in concordance" downward, the treatise has three explanations to clarify the meaning of not [arising] jointly. Third, from "The meaning is" downward, the commentary explains the text of the treatise, proceeding through the treatise's three meanings as they successively support one another. The commentary has two sections: first, combining and explaining the first two; second, separately explaining the third. Now the first: "merely that volitional formations accord with avidyā, and when conditions gather they cannot fail to arise" is the first meaning. Since it speaks of concordance, it clarifies that when conditions gather they cannot fail to arise, which is precisely non-arising. Second, why is it that through concordance one attains non-arising? Because volitional formations and avidyā mutually depend on each other and lack any knower. Due to the above two meanings, it is not self-made. The second section, from "If so" downward, separately explains the third meaning, using non-abiding to explain the aforementioned "lack of knowing." Just as the water in a river rushes and races along, they have no mutual cognition. From "This agrees with the Abhidharma" downward, it adduces the treatise to corroborate the Abhidharma, which is just as in the preceding text. Furthermore, the Madhyamakaśāstra states, "This is precisely the meaning of error." In terms of the text, it refers to the "Examination of Causes and Effects," which says: "If dependent on manifold causes and conditions there is a composite phenomenon, and the composite itself does not arise, how could it produce an effect?" And the "Examination of the Tathāgata" says: "If the aggregates combine to form the Tathāgata, he is without self-nature," and so forth; all express this meaning.