請觀音經疏闡義鈔 1.57

1.57

"This is self-arising": if one says that the object is of itself an object, the object is not due to the illumination of wisdom; this is the self-arising of the object. If one says that wisdom is of itself wisdom, wisdom is not generated due to an object; this is the self-arising of wisdom. Here it merely challenges the first proposition, the remaining three being analogous to it; hence it says "and so forth." If one wishes to formulate the full challenge: the next proposition should say, if wisdom is due to an object, this is the other-arising of wisdom; if an object is due to wisdom, this is the other-arising of the object. Why? An object because of its own object—since one calls the object "self," looking from object to wisdom, wisdom is "other." Now if the object arises from wisdom, is it not an other-object? Wisdom is also like this. If an object is due to combination, or wisdom is due to combination, then the object is not an object due to wisdom, nor is it an object due to the object; wisdom and object arise due to the combination of causes and conditions, and so too for wisdom. This is arising from both. Arising from both has two faults, falling into the natures of self and other. If it is an object or wisdom due to being neither wisdom nor object, then apart from object and apart from wisdom, without causes and conditions, one distinguishes object and wisdom. Arising from causes and conditions is already ungraspable, how much more so without causes and conditions? These four are all false conceptualizations and reckonings, so they must be refuted. Question: The Buddha-Dharma everywhere says that causes and conditions combine; why refute arising from both? Answer: Because of fixed attachment, it must also be refuted. Once the four attachments are refuted, the four expositions are without fault.