華嚴一乘教義分齊章 4.35

4.35

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.