大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 67.6

67.6

疏「三道皆言不斷」下，亦是釋於始終之難，顯無始終。先正釋、後引證。前中，從「三煩惱生於二業」者，從一無明生一行業，從愛取二生一有業。「二業生七苦」者，從一行業生識等五，從一有業生生老死故。「七復生三」者，識等五苦生愛取二，生死二苦生無明故。上云不了知故，生死流轉。「如淨意菩薩」者，彼論與此相應，偈云「煩惱初八九，業二及與十，餘七說為苦，三攝十二法。從三故生二，從二故生七，從七復生三，是故如輪轉。一切世間法，唯因果無人，但從諸法空，還生於空法。」若準《俱舍》，亦為通難，故論「問云：若緣起支唯十二者，不說老死果，生死應有終。不說無明因，生死應有始。或應更立餘緣起支，餘復有餘成無窮失。答云：不應更立。然無前過，此中世尊由義已顯。云何已顯？頌曰：從惑生惑業，從業生於事，從事事惑生，有支理唯此。」釋曰：初句有二，一從惑生惑，謂從愛生取；二從惑生業者，謂取生有無明生行。次句有一義，謂從行生識及從有生生，皆從業生事。第三句有二義：一從事生事，謂識生名色，乃至觸生受及生生老死；二從事生惑，謂受生愛，義亦應有老死生無明。上一「事」字即是能生，下「事惑」字即二所生，「從生」二字兩遍用之。第四句結釋酬難，謂諸有支唯此十二，道理足矣。上所引論，文則小異，義意大同。

Where the commentary says, 'It is said that none of the three paths is ever interrupted,' below, this also resolves the difficulty concerning a beginning and an end, revealing that there is neither beginning nor end. First, it explains it directly; next, it cites corroborating evidence. In the former, as for 'from the three afflictions the two karmas are produced,' from the one [affliction], avidyā, the one karma, saṃskāra, is produced; and from the two, tṛṣṇā and upādāna, the one karma, bhava, is produced. As for 'the two karmas produce the seven sufferings,' it is because from the one karma, saṃskāra, the five beginning with vijñāna are produced; and from the one karma, bhava, jāti and jarāmaraṇa are produced. As for 'the seven in turn produce the three,' it is because the five sufferings beginning with vijñāna produce the two, tṛṣṇā and upādāna; and the two sufferings of jāti and maraṇa produce avidyā. The above [passage] says that because of not understanding, one transmigrates through birth and death. As for 'as Bodhisattva Śuddhamati [states],' that treatise corresponds with this, where the verse says: / 'Afflictions are the first, eighth, and ninth; / karma is the second and the tenth; / the remaining seven are said to be suffering; / the three encompass the twelve dharmas. / Because from the three, two are produced, / and from the two, seven are produced, / and from the seven, three are produced again, / therefore [it turns] like a wheel. / All mundane dharmas / are only cause and effect, without a person; / merely from dharmas that are empty, / empty dharmas are produced again in turn.' / If one relies on the Kośa, it likewise resolves the difficulty, for the treatise asks: 'If the links of dependent origination are only twelve, then without stating a fruition for jarāmaraṇa, birth and death ought to have an end. Without stating a cause for avidyā, birth and death ought to have a beginning. Or else one ought to posit further links of dependent origination, and beyond those there would be yet others, resulting in the fault of an infinite regress.' It answers: 'One ought not to posit further [links]. Yet there is not the former fault, for here the World-Honoured One has already revealed [the meaning] by virtue of the sense.' 'How is it already revealed?' The verse says: / 'From affliction, affliction and karma are produced; / from karma, things are produced; / from things, things and afflictions are produced; / in principle, the constituents of existence are only these.' / The explanation states: The first line has two [meanings]: first, from affliction, affliction is produced, meaning from tṛṣṇā, upādāna is produced; second, from affliction, karma is produced, meaning that upādāna produces bhava, and avidyā produces saṃskāra. The next line has one meaning, namely, from saṃskāra, vijñāna is produced, and from bhava, jāti is produced; these are all from karma, things are produced. The third line has two meanings: first, from things, things are produced, meaning vijñāna produces nāmarūpa, up to sparśa producing vedanā, and jāti producing jarāmaraṇa; second, from things, afflictions are produced, meaning vedanā produces tṛṣṇā, and in principle there should also be jarāmaraṇa producing avidyā. The upper word 'things' is the producing [cause], and the lower words 'things and afflictions' are the two produced [results]; the two words 'from... are produced' are applied twice. The fourth line concludes the explanation and answers the objection, meaning that of the constituents of existence there are only these twelve, and the principle is complete. The texts of the treatises cited above differ slightly, but their doctrinal purport is largely the same.