大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 67.39

67.39

The commentary states: 'Second, with respect to the mutual deprivation of causes and conditions': this means that based on the previous reckoning, one takes cause as self and conditions as other to reveal the principle. However, the initial dispersed explanation of the Abhidharmasamuccaya also takes refuting self as primary; hence it says: 'Furthermore, there is a distinction: depending on manifold conditions, they are not self-made; although there are manifold conditions, without seeds they do not arise, and thus they are not other-made; both of them lack activity, and thus they are not made by both; seeds and manifold conditions all have efficacy, and thus they are not uncaused arising. Therefore it is said in this way: because one's own seeds exist, they are not from other, and so forth, exactly as in the present commentary.' Explanation: The first phrase refutes other by means of self. As in external dharmas, taking the grain seed as self and water and so forth as other. In internal dharmas, consciousness seeds are self, and karmic seeds as sovereign conditions are other. If there are no seeds, an effect will definitely not arise; therefore it does not arise from other. The next phrase refutes self by means of other; hence it says that depending on manifold conditions, they are not self-made. Next, because of lacking activity they do not arise from both: this uses combination lacking nature to refute both. Next, because of having efficacy they are not causeless: this uses both to refute causelessness. The statement 'The treatise's explanation is identical to this' means taking the treatise's explanation to be identical with the Abhidharmasamuccaya, as discerned below in the explanatory text. That treatise concludes: 'If the principle of dependent origination being neither self nor other dispels both phrases, it is still extremely profound. How much more so when universally negating the four phrases; therefore dependent origination is most supremely profound.'