大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 74.16

74.16

Ninth, the penetration of the cognition of all dharmas. As for "However, these three pairs of explanations have three meanings": these three meanings are scattered throughout the sūtras and treatises, and ancient masters accepted or rejected them differently according to their own views. In the intention of the present commentary, all of them are gathered, and their distinct meanings are all taken as correct interpretations; only by combining these three intentions does one exhaust the profound purport. However, in these three pairs, all of them establish their differences through the lower line, whereas the upper line of "neither different" has the same meaning throughout: they are all alike in dispelling the mark of differentiation. The lower line, contrasted with the upper, separately establishes three levels: First, considering it solely in terms of revealing the real, one sweeps away traces and enters into the profound. "Neither different" sweeps away the mark of differentiation. "Nor not different" sweeps away the trace of the aforesaid non-difference; thus it dispels and dispels further, until there is nothing left to dispel. And within the text there are two parts: first it generally explains both lines, hence saying "because they are empty by mutual dependence." Next, it first refutes difference, saying "because difference mutually lacks [the other], it is said to be not different." This is the intention in the chapter 'Examination of Combination' of the Madhyamakaśāstra. Because the Hīnayāna asserts the combination of the three factors of seeing, the visible, and the seer, it uses difference to refute it, saying: "If there were different things, there would be combination; seeing and so forth have no difference. Since different things are not established, how could seeing and so forth combine?" The explanation says: this only generally clarifies that there is no difference, and that if there is difference there is no combination. Next, it refutes difference by analogy, saying: "Not only are the visible and so forth ungraspable in their marks of difference, all existing dharmas are without marks of difference." The explanation says: above it generally states their absence; below it provides the reason for their absence, saying: "Difference is different because of difference; apart from difference, there is no difference. If a dharma arises conditioned by something, that dharma is not different from its cause." This means, for instance, the eye is different from form, and form is different from the eye: this is called difference. Now it clarifies that because it is different due to form, the eye is different; hence it says "difference is different because of difference." If apart from form, from what would the eye differ? Hence it says "apart from difference, there is no difference." In that case, the two differences of eye and form are established depending on each other, so there is no fixed eye or form to constitute difference; hence it says "if a dharma arises conditioned by something, that dharma is not different from its cause." It is also like beams and rafters making a house: the house is not different from the dharmas such as beams and rafters; hence it says "if a dharma arises conditioned by something, that dharma is not different from its cause." If the eye is like the house, then form is added like the beams, etc.; if form is like the house, the eye is like the beams, etc.; thus they are mutually the condition. Therefore the commentary says "difference mutually lacks [the other]," meaning that because eye and form depend on each other, there is no fixed difference. Furthermore, it is like the difference between long and short: within long there is no mark of short, so long has nothing to correspond to, and thus there is no long; within short there is no mark of long, so short has nothing to correspond to, and thus there is no short. Since there is neither long nor short, who can speak of difference? Hence it says "because difference mutually lacks [the other], there is no difference." Furthermore, within long there is inherently no mark of long, and within short there is inherently no mark of short; taking what long and short could one speak of difference? This is also the intention of the Madhyamakaśāstra, as well as the intention of the Śataśāstra. Therefore the Madhyamakaśāstra says: "In difference there is no mark of difference, nor is there in non-difference. Because there is no mark of difference, there is no difference between this and that." In the chapter 'Examination of One' of the Śataśāstra, the non-Buddhists assert oneness, and the Buddhist refutes it, saying: "If cause and effect were not different, the three periods of time would be one." They rescue their position, saying: "It is not so, because cause and effect are established by mutual dependence, like long and short." The commentary says: "Like seeing short because of long, and seeing long because of short; like seeing a lump of clay: viewing the pot, it is the cause; viewing the earth, it is the result." The Buddhist refutes: "Because of the joint error of depending on the other and mutual opposition, the mark of long is not in the long, nor in the short, nor in both." The commentary says: "If there were truly a mark of long, whether it existed in the long, or in the short, or in both, all of these are ungraspable. Why? Within long there is no mark of long, because it depends on the other—because it is long due to short. Within short there is also no mark of long, because their natures are mutually opposed. If within short there were long, it could not be called short. Nor is there long in both, because both would incur the errors. If it existed in the long or in the short, both errors have already been explained above. Taking what could they combine? Since the mark of long does not exist, the mark of short is likewise. If there is neither long nor short, how could there be mutual dependence?" The refutation of difference above is complete. Next, when the commentary says "stopping difference, it says 'not different'" onward, it explains the absence of non-difference through the gate of mutual dependence, meaning that because there is no difference to depend on, both are mutually cut off, thereby according with nature-emptiness (svabhāva-śūnyatā). This is also the intention of the Śataśāstra's saying: "If there is neither long nor short, how could there be mutual dependence?"