大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 65.38

65.38

As for the commentary from "Now first, (1) from..." onward: this is the second part, the separate explanations. First, it explains the six meanings of impermanence; however, this text is difficult to understand. For instance, between "from its own seed it also relies on other conditions" and the second clause, "from others it also relies on itself," what is the difference between these two clauses? Therefore, each clause contains two meanings: "From its own seed" is the meaning of arising from self; "also relies on other conditions" is the meaning of not arising from self. The three below are analogous. Therefore, the fourth fascicle of the Samuccaya says: "Furthermore, dharmas do not arise from self, nor do they arise from others, nor from both, nor without a cause; nor is it that they are not produced by causes and conditions made by self and made by others—therefore it is profound." Thus, not arising from self is also arising from self; second, not arising from others is also arising from others; third, not arising from both is also arising from joint causes and conditions. In the above three clauses there are two meanings: If it arose solely from its own seed, it would not be called profound; if it were solely not arising from self, it would also not be profound. Only when one clause combines both is it called profound. This is precisely identical to the meaning in the Madhyamakaśāstra that dharmas produced by causes and conditions are simultaneously empty, provisionally designated, and the middle. The Samuccaya's explanation of not arising from self and so forth inherently possesses two meanings, which should be known when reaching the eighth section. Below it concludes: "If the principle of conditioned arising negates both sides—being neither from self nor from others—it is already profound; how much more so when the four clauses are entirely eliminated! Therefore, conditioned arising is supremely profound." Explanation: Without seeing this treatise, the Yogācārabhūmi would be difficult to understand. "From its own seed" is the meaning of arising from self; "also relies on other conditions" means negating self by means of other. Second, "from other" is the meaning of arising from other; "also relies on self" means negating other by means of self. Third, "from both" is the meaning of arising from both; "lacking any active functioning" means negating both by means of the lack of inherent nature. Fourth, "the nature of these two causes is not non-existent" means negating causelessness by means of their joint efficacy. The preceding three clauses possess the two meanings of existence and lack of inherent nature in conditioned arising, and therefore both have affirmation and negation. Because the fourth clause does not establish causelessness, it only negates causelessness by means of joint [causes]. Fifth, although the characteristics are accomplished, they do not obstruct cessation. Sixth, it ceases yet seems to abide. The first four clauses discuss profound depth in terms of dharmas produced by conditions. The fifth and sixth clauses discuss profound depth by contrasting the produced dharmas with the characteristics of conditioned things. The first four, because they are dharmas produced by conditions, are impermanent. The latter two, because they cease moment by moment, are impermanent. The rest of the text can be known.