華嚴一乘教義分齊章 4.35

4.35

初喻示者，如數十錢法。所以說十者，欲應圓數顯無盡故。此中有二：一異體、二同體。所以有此二門者，以諸緣起門內有二義故：一不相由義，謂自具德故，如因中不待緣等是也；二相由義，如待緣等是也。初即同體，後即異體。就異體中有二門：一相即、二相入。所以有此二門者，以諸緣起法皆有二義故：一空有義，此望自體；二力無力義，此望力用。由初義故得相即，由後義故得相入。初中由自若有時，他必無故，故他即自。何以故？由他無性以自作故。二由自若空時，他必自有，故自即他。何以故？由自無性，用他作故。以二有二空各不俱故，無彼不相即，有無無有無二故，是故常相即。若不爾者，緣起不成，有自性等過。思之可見。二、明力用中自有全力故，所以能攝他；他全無力故，所以能入自。他有力、自無力（反上可知），不據自體故非相即；力用交徹，故成相入。又由二有力、二無力各不俱故，無彼不相入；有力無力、無力有力無二故，是故常相入。又以用攝體，更無別體故，唯是相入；以體攝用無別用故，唯是相即。此依因六義內準之，於中先明相入。初向上數十門，一者，一是本數。何以故？緣成故。乃至十者，一中十。何以故？若無一即十不成故，一即全有力，故攝於十也，仍十非一矣。餘九門亦如是，一一皆有十，準例可知。向下數亦十門，一者十即攝一。何以故？緣成故，謂若無十，即一不成故，即一全無力，歸於十也，仍一非十矣，餘例然。如是本末二門中，各具足十門，餘一一錢中準以思之。此約異門相望說耳。問：「既言一者，何得一中有十耶？」答：「大緣起陀羅尼法，若無一，即一切不成故，定知如是。此義云何？所言一者，非自性一，緣成故，是故一中有十者，是緣成一。若不爾者，自性無緣起，不得名一也，乃至十者皆非自性十，由緣成故。為此十中有一者，是緣成無性十，若不爾者，自性無緣起，不名十也。是故一切緣起皆非自性。何以故？隨去一緣，即一切不成，是故一中即具多者，方名緣起一耳。」問：「若去一緣即不成者，此則無性。無自性者，云何得成一多緣起？」答：「秖由無性，得成一多緣起。何以故？由此緣起是法界家實德故，普賢境界具德自在無障礙故，《華嚴》云『菩薩善觀緣起法，於一法中解眾多法，眾多法中解了一法。』是故當知，一中十、十中一，相容無礙，仍不相是。一門中既具足十義故，明知一門中皆有無盡義，餘門亦如是。」問：「一門中攝十盡不？」答：「盡不盡。何以故？一中十故盡，十中一故不盡，四句護過去，非顯德等，準之可解耳。別別諸門中準例如是，緣起妙理應如是知。」第一門竟。

First, the indication by metaphor: like the method of counting ten coins. The reason ten are spoken of is to correspond to the round number and reveal boundlessness. In this, there are two: first, different essence; second, identical essence. The reason there are these two approaches is that within all approaches to dependent origination there are two meanings: first, the meaning of not depending on one another, which means possessing virtues by oneself, as in not depending on conditions in the cause; second, the meaning of depending on one another, as in depending on conditions. The former is identical essence; the latter is different essence. Within different essence there are two approaches: first, mutual identity; second, mutual interpenetration. The reason there are these two approaches is that all dependently originated dharmas possess two meanings: first, the meaning of emptiness and existence, which regards the self-essence; second, the meaning of power and powerlessness, which regards power and function. Through the first meaning, mutual identity is attained; through the second meaning, mutual interpenetration is attained. In the first, when the self exists, the other is necessarily absent, so the other is identical with the self. Why? Because the other lacks self-nature and is made by the self. Second, when the self is empty, the other necessarily exists by itself, so the self is identical with the other. Why? Because the self lacks self-nature and is made by using the other. Since two existences and two empties do not coexist, there is none that is not mutually identical; because existence and non-existence, and non-existence and existence, are non-dual, therefore they are always mutually identical. If it were not so, dependent origination would not be established, and there would be faults such as having self-nature. Contemplate this and it can be seen. Second, in explaining power and function, because the self has full power, it can subsume the other; because the other is completely powerless, it can enter into the self. When the other has power and the self is powerless (the reverse of above, which can be understood), because it is not based on the self-essence, it is not mutual identity; because power and function thoroughly interpenetrate, it constitutes mutual interpenetration. Moreover, because two having power and two lacking power do not coexist, there is none that does not mutually interpenetrate; because having power and lacking power, and lacking power and having power, are non-dual, therefore they always mutually interpenetrate. Furthermore, taking the essence with function, there is no separate essence, so it is solely mutual interpenetration; taking the function with essence, there is no separate function, so it is solely mutual identity. This should be inferred in accordance with the six meanings of cause. Among them, first explain mutual interpenetration. First, in the approach of counting upward to ten: one is the base number. Why? Because it is accomplished through conditions. Up to ten: ten within one. Why? Because if there were no one, ten would not be accomplished; one has full power, so it subsumes ten, yet ten is not one. The other nine approaches are also like this; each and every one has ten, as can be known by following this model. In counting downward, there are also ten approaches: first, ten subsumes one. Why? Because it is accomplished through conditions; that is, if there were no ten, one would not be accomplished, so one is completely powerless and returns to ten, yet one is not ten. The rest are modeled likewise. In this way, both the base and derivative approaches are fully endowed with ten approaches; one can contemplate and infer this in each of the other coins. This is spoken from the mutual perspective of different approaches. Question: 'Since you say "one", how can there be ten within one?' Answer: 'In the great dhāraṇī-dharma of dependent origination, if there is no one, then all is not accomplished; thus it is definitely known to be like this. What does this mean? What is called "one" is not a one of self-nature; because it is accomplished through conditions, the ten within one is a conditionally accomplished one. If it were not so, self-nature would lack dependent origination and could not be called "one". Up to ten, none is a ten of self-nature, because of conditionally accomplished existence. Therefore, that there is one within ten is a conditionally accomplished ten that lacks nature. If it were not so, self-nature would lack dependent origination and would not be called ten. Therefore, all dependent origination lacks self-nature. Why? Because if any single condition is removed, all is not accomplished; therefore, only when one contains the many can it be called a dependently originated one.' Question: 'If removing a single condition means it is not accomplished, then this lacks nature. If it lacks self-nature, how can the dependent origination of one and many be accomplished?' Answer: 'Precisely because of lacking nature, the dependent origination of one and many can be accomplished. Why? Because this dependent origination is the real virtue of the dharma-realm, and the realm of Samantabhadra possesses virtues with freedom and without obstruction. As the Avataṃsaka says: "Bodhisattvas skillfully contemplate the dharma of dependent origination; within one dharma they understand many dharmas, and within many dharmas they understand one dharma." Therefore, one should know that ten in one and one in ten accommodate each other without obstruction, yet they are not mutually identical. Since one approach is fully endowed with ten meanings, clearly one approach contains boundless meanings, and the other approaches are also like this.' Question: 'Does one approach subsume ten completely or not?' Answer: 'Completely and not completely. Why? Because ten is in one, it is completely; because one is in ten, it is not completely. Guard against the four propositions; it is not revealing virtue, etc. Inferring it, this can be understood. In each of the various distinct approaches, the model is like this; the profound principle of dependent origination should be known in this way.' The first approach is concluded.