大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 66.44

66.44

In the commentary, under "Not identical and not separate is named own-cause," the third section concludes and demonstrates the correct doctrine. Therein, it first marks it. The words "both senses are also established" mean the two senses of non-interruption and contributing to formation. Later, under "Therefore the treatise master," the second part adduces proofs. Therein, it first cites the verses of the treatise; later, under "The first line broadly raises," the commentary explains the verses of the treatise. This means the first line broadly raises all conditioned phenomena, not confined to these twelve causal condition links; the second and third lines clarify non-identity and non-separation; the fourth line concludes by returning to the middle way. From "Neither annihilated nor eternal" downward, the commentary contains five levels of the middle way's meanings of non-annihilation and non-eternity. The first one is general, specifically the meaning of causes ceasing and not being eternal, and effects continuing and not being annihilated; hence it states: "Because of non-identity, it is not eternal." Being identical means the cause reaches to the effect, which falls into eternity. The words "Because of not being different, it is not annihilated" mean producing the effect from the cause, which is the sense of the continuity of effects, and hence it is not annihilated. Being different means the effect does not continue from the cause, which falls into annihilation. The next three meanings are unfolded from this, but their underlying import is distinct. The second import establishes non-annihilation and non-eternity upon both meanings of non-identity and non-separation. First, regarding "Because it is not identical to the cause, the effect is not annihilated and the cause is not eternal": non-identity implies there is an effect, so the effect is not annihilated; the cause does not coexist with the effect, so the cause is not eternal. Next, it states: "Because it is not different from the cause, the effect is not eternal and the cause is not annihilated": the effect is produced from the cause, so the effect is not eternal; not being different means the cause can produce the effect, so the cause is not annihilated. This is an intertwining of cause and effect to clarify non-annihilation and non-eternity. Third, regarding "Furthermore, because of non-identity, cause and effect are both not annihilated," etc.: within a single line, non-annihilation and non-eternity are both present. Because of non-identity, there is a cause and there is an effect; hence neither is annihilated, because they are not different. Why cause and effect are both not eternal is difficult to see; hence it explains: not having an uncaused eternity. Not being different means the effect is produced from the cause, hence it is not an uncaused eternity. Non-identity means the cause is revealed through the effect, which is also not an uncaused eternity. However, uncaused eternity has two meanings: first, as the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says, "Among these heterodox paths, there is not a single dharma that is not produced from conditions; therefore, they are impermanent. The Tathāgata, Buddha-nature, and space are not produced from conditions; therefore, they are eternal." This is true eternity, not what is clarified here. Second, the subtle atoms and primordial nature posited by heterodox paths have no preceding cause, so they are spoken of as eternal. This is an erroneous eternity, which is what is discarded here. Fourth, regarding "Furthermore, it is also the reverse of this": it should say that because of non-identity, cause and effect are both not eternal; because of not being different, cause and effect are both not annihilated. The meaning of non-annihilation is easy, so it is not further explained: not being different means there is an effect from the cause, and neither is annihilated. Not eternal is difficult to see, so it now explains: not a continuity-eternity. If it were identical to the cause, the cause would reach to the effect, like clay reaching to the jar; this cause would then be eternal, and the effect being identical to the cause, the effect would also be a continuity-eternity. This eternity is a wrong view, which is why it is now discarded. The preceding continuous non-annihilation is the correct doctrine, because the effect continues without interruption. The fifth says, under "Furthermore, because non-separation is non-identity," it unites non-identity, non-separation, non-annihilation, and non-eternity into a single principle. Among the five explanations above, the first one looks toward the next three, unfolding the specific from the general; this one looks toward the preceding four, uniting what was unfolded before; therefore, one should contemplate it to achieve profound contemplation. In the commentary, under "In the text, the forward [order]," the second part explains the sūtra. In the treatise's explanation of the sūtra, it first directly explains the text and afterward explains own-cause. The meaning of own-cause has already been extensively cited above; now it only explains the treatise's words "seed" and "fruit." In the commentary there are two explanations: the former is also an explanation of antiquity; from "it may also be said" downward is the second explanation, which properly accords with the intention of the treatise. It also accords with Lion's Roar's question in Chapter Twenty-nine of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]: "If the aggregates have no binding, how is there bondage?" The Buddha answered: "The five aggregates are bound by the chains of afflictions; therefore, it is said that name-and-form binds sentient beings, and sentient beings bind name-and-form," and so forth. Lion's Roar raised an objection: "If name-and-form is bondage, then an arhat, not having departed from name-and-form, should also be bound." The Buddha answered: "Good son! Liberation is of two kinds: first, the severing of seeds; second, the severing of fruits. Severing seeds is called the severing of afflictions; because the fruit is not yet severed, it is called fruit-bondage." He also cited an oil lamp as an analogy for afflictions and sentient beings. Explanation: this clarifies that being a cause is called a seed; the arhat severs the cause of afflictions but is not yet free from the bondage of the fruit, so it resembles the latter meaning. Because the treatise says avidyā has two, when it serves as a cause, the preceding link is able to give rise to the subsequent. If the preceding link reaches to the subsequent, there are only seeds; it is not the cause that directly generates the subsequent link; hence the time of the seed is taken. A seed is just a cause. Therefore the treatise says: "Here, the time of the seed means there are two senses in causing formations not to be interrupted, because the two senses of self-substance and contributing to formation both belong to the preceding link. That the cause is designated as a seed is like a grain seed sprouting a shoot. The fruit is formations; at the time of formations, there is avidyā concomitant with formations, which does not initiate karma, and hence it is not taken. The remaining links are modeled on this. All take the preceding link as the condition for the subsequent link, causing the subsequent not to be interrupted and contributing to the formation of the subsequent link." Therefore the commentary's primary intention lies in the latter explanation. In the commentary, under "Subsequently, in the reverse contemplation, the treatise says," the text has two parts: first, it cites the treatise; second, under "twelve causal conditions," it explains. Here is the first. In the sūtra, it also runs through the twelve, stating that because avidyā ceases, formations cease—because the causal condition of avidyā is absent, formations cease and are not contributed to their formation, and so forth. Because formations cease, consciousness ceases—because the causal condition of formations is absent, consciousness ceases and is not contributed to its formation, and so forth. But the treatise says: "When the preceding extremity and subsequent extremity cease, the middle extremity is also absent." The meaning is: if the preceding extremity's avidyā and formations are absent, the middle extremity's five fruits are absent; if the subsequent extremity's craving, grasping, and becoming are absent, the middle extremity's painful fruits will never arise again later. It generally reveals the meaning that without cause there is no effect. As for calling craving, grasping, and becoming the subsequent extremity: in the sixth section below, the gate of the saṃsāric transmigration of the three extremities, craving, grasping, and becoming are designated as the subsequent extremity because causes are subsumed under effects.