大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 67.40

67.40

In the commentary, from 'If so' downward, it resolves objections and eliminates confusion. The ancients mostly took 'not causeless' to mean 'arising from causes'; hence this question and answer was formulated, citing the Madhyamakaśāstra as proof. It only proves using other to refute self, using self to refute other, and so forth, as stated before. Therefore this treatise's objection shows the intent: if you establish that intrinsic nature can produce, it should not further rely on remaining causes and conditions. If it has an intrinsic nature and yet relies on conditions, then this intrinsic nature should abide within conditions. Now, within the conditions of water and earth there is no intrinsic nature of grain; this clarifies that it does not arise from self. The commentary's 'The lower two phrases follow this by analogy' means using lack of activity to refute both, not establishing arising through lack of activity; and using both to refute causelessness, not establishing both. This individually reveals the meaning of non-arising; therefore, one is made to examine it closely so that people are not confused. As for revealing the profound, it will be explained immediately below.