大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 32.3

32.3

Regarding the Commentary's line beginning with "Therefore, the dharmas of dependent origination": this is the second [section], which comprehensively explains the meaning of dependent origination. Within it there are four [parts]: first, a general explanation; second, opening up the meanings; third, harmonisation and integration; fourth, a separate explanation of the meaning of nature. The first part has two sections: first, establishing the meaning and correlating it with the sūtras; and second, from "Therefore, because they are devoid of intrinsic nature and dependently arisen, they are empty" onwards, reconciling and returning to the middle way. Now for the first. Among the four meanings, two meanings are the meaning of emptiness and existence: that is, being dependently arisen and therefore existing is the meaning of existence; being devoid of intrinsic nature and therefore empty is the meaning of emptiness. Two meanings are the rationale for emptiness and existence: that is, being devoid of intrinsic nature and therefore existing is the rationale for existence; being dependently arisen and therefore empty is the rationale for emptiness. The "rationale" is simply causes and conditions. That is to say, on what grounds does [the notion of] being devoid of intrinsic nature establish the meaning of emptiness? The explanation states: because [dharmas] arise from conditions, they are devoid of intrinsic nature. Therefore, dependent arising devoid of intrinsic nature is the rationale for emptiness. On what grounds does dependent arising serve as the meaning of existence? The explanation states: precisely because they lack a fixed intrinsic nature, they first come to constitute illusory existence from conditions; therefore, being devoid of intrinsic nature is the rationale for existence. Hence the Madhyamakaśāstra, "Chapter on the Four Noble Truths", states: "If one does not know emptiness, does not know the causes and conditions of emptiness, and does not know the meaning of emptiness, one will consequently produce vexation for oneself—just as one who is unskilled in incantations or unskilled in seizing a venomous snake." If one views these four phrases collectively in relation to emptiness and existence, they are all called rationales; therefore it is said that because they are dependently arisen, they are called existing, and because they are dependently arisen, they are called empty; because they are devoid of intrinsic nature, they are called existing, and because they are devoid of intrinsic nature, they are called empty. Truly, because all dharmas necessarily arise from conditions, existing from conditions they are necessarily devoid of intrinsic nature; and because they are devoid of intrinsic nature, they therefore follow conditions. Conditioning is existence and nature is nonexistence—there are no two dharmas whatsoever; yet, in terms of the myriad differentiated classes of illusory existence, it is termed the conventional truth, and in terms of the single flavour of being devoid of intrinsic nature, it is termed the ultimate truth. Furthermore, regarding the fact that among the four phrases, only the third phrase cites scriptural proof for its establishment: this is because [the principle of] "existing because of being devoid of intrinsic nature" is difficult to reveal. If one provides proofs in full: first, regarding "existing because of being dependently arisen", the Lotus Sūtra says: "They exist only through causes and conditions, being spoken of because they arise from inverted views"; the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: "All dharmas arise by reason of causes and conditions"; the Madhyamakaśāstra says: "Never has there been a single dharma that does not arise from causes and conditions", and so forth—all of which are the meaning of "existing through causes and conditions". Second, regarding "being empty because of being dependently arisen", a sūtra says: "That which is produced by causes and conditions is devoid of arising"; the treatise says: "If a dharma arises from conditions, it is devoid of intrinsic nature. If it is devoid of intrinsic nature, how can this dharma exist?" Third, as for the statement, "Because the meaning of emptiness exists, all dharmas can be established", this is also a passage from the "Chapter on the Four Noble Truths". Because the preceding chapters eliminated existence by means of emptiness, the Hīnayāna pointed out a fault to the bodhisattva, saying: "If all dharmas are empty, devoid of arising and devoid of cessation, then the dharmas of the four noble truths would not exist." The bodhisattva replied by reversing it, saying: "If everything were not empty, devoid of arising and devoid of cessation, then the dharmas of the four noble truths would not exist." That is to say, the Hīnayāna maintains that because of emptiness the four truths do not exist, whereas the bodhisattva maintains that because of non-emptiness the four truths would not exist; if the meaning of emptiness exists, only then are the four truths established. Hence the verse states: "Because the meaning of emptiness exists, / All dharmas can be established; / If the meaning of emptiness does not exist, / Then nothing can be established." This is precisely "existing because of being devoid of intrinsic nature".