大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 43.19

43.19

Regarding the Commentary's statement, "The second pair explains that they do not reside within each other": That is, sentient beings do not exist within inverted views, and so forth. Regarding the Commentary's phrase, "The statement 'not separated from'": This clause refers back to the preceding. Above it was said that there are no inverted views separated from sentient beings, clarifying that cause and effect are mutually dependent before conditions can be established; this explains the above meaning. Clinging to the real based on the apparent means awaiting the effect to complete the cause; the apparent arising based on grasping means awaiting the cause to complete the effect. The above clarified the correctness of the preceding pair; from "not existing beforehand" downward, it eliminates the error of the preceding pair—namely, the approach of prior existence and prior non-existence. From "there is no effect within the cause" downward, it demonstrates the correct meaning. In explaining the two phrases of the sūtra text, it first straightforwardly states the correct meaning, and afterward conversely reveals the fault of prior existence. First, the statement "Because there is no effect within the cause, there is no sentient being within inverted view" straightforwardly states the correct meaning. Next, from "if it must be" downward, it conversely explains to eliminate the error, because it does not exist beforehand. The imagined nature is the cause; if there were an effect within the cause, then there would be the dependent nature within the imagined nature. From "because there is no cause within the effect, there is no inverted view within sentient beings," it straightforwardly states the correct meaning. From "if it must be made to exist" downward, it conversely explains to eliminate the error. If the effect had the cause, then where there are sentient beings, there would be inverted views; now, since there are sentient beings who are not inverted, one knows there is no cause within the effect. In the third pair, the statement "Not destroying cause and effect, the grasper and the grasped of the imagined": The cause is the imagining grasper; the effect is what is imagined. What is imagined is precisely the dependent nature. From "owing to the preceding" downward, it concludes by reverting to the Middle Way.