華嚴五十要問答 2.20

2.20

Question: When a bodhisattva first begins practice, they first contemplate actual causes and effects, establishing the skillful means for entering the path. What is the meaning of this?

Answer: Generally speaking, the main outline of the Buddha's Dharma has two types, namely the ultimate and the conventional; because conforming to the contemplation of the worldly truth allows entry into the primary meaning. What are the characteristics of this contemplation? Phenomena have many gates; here we briefly rely on the meaning of simultaneous, actual mutual causation.

Entering the meaning of cause and effect has two tiers. Within the first tier there are three gates: first, explaining the prevention of the error of conceptual discrimination; second, explaining its meaning; third, explaining how contravening it constitutes an error.

First, regarding the meaning of prevention: it is briefly explained by relying on the lamp-light and the burning wick; all bodily and mental matters can be understood by analogy to this. A question asks: Does the burning wick produce the glowing flame? Answer: No, because the wick is produced from the flame. It is asked again: Does the flame produce the wick? Answer: No, because the flame is produced from the wick. It is asked again: Is the flame produced from the wick? Answer: No, because the flame can produce the wick. It is asked again: Is the wick produced from the flame? Answer: No, because the wick can produce the flame. It is asked again: Can it be non-production? Answer: No, because when the wick is removed, the flame ceases accordingly. It is asked again: Are production and non-production both present? Answer: No, because they are mutually contradictory. It is asked again: Is it neither production nor non-production? Answer: No, because that contravenes the principle of the actual arising of causes and effects. The explanation of the first gate is concluded.

Second, regarding its meaning: The wick-cause producing the flame-effect—that the cause has the meaning of "existence" is because it has efficacy. That the flame-effect is produced from the cause has the meaning of "non-existence" because it is produced in dependence on the wick-cause. That the flame produces the wick can be understood in reverse to the above. That the flame-effect is produced from the wick-cause has the meaning of "non-existence" because it lacks an independent essence. That the wick produces the glowing flame—the wick-cause has the meaning of "non-non-existence" because it has efficacy. The remaining propositions can be understood by analogy. The second gate is concluded.

Third, regarding how contravening it constitutes an error: If one says that the wick-cause produces, then the effect could also be constantly produced, because it would always be able to produce the flame-effect, which is [the error of] superimposition. If one says that the wick does not produce, then it could also constantly not produce the flame-effect, because without a cause it would not exist, which is [the error of] deprecation. That the flame produces the wick can be understood as above. If it both produces and does not produce, they are mutually contradictory. If one says it neither produces nor does not produce, that is frivolous fabrication. The remaining meanings can be understood by analogy. The third gate is concluded.

Regarding the second tier: its three gates are the same as before. In the first gate, it is first explained in terms of the cause and subsequently discussed in terms of the effect. Question: Is the cause existent? Answer: No, because it is a cause relative to the effect, and because it is formed by conditions. It is asked again: Is the cause non-existent? Answer: No, because it produces the effect. It is asked again: Does the cause possess both existence and non-existence? Answer: No, because they are mutually contradictory. It is asked again: Is it neither existent nor non-existent? Answer: No, because one presently sees the phenomenon of producing an effect. Second, discussing it in terms of the effect: Question: Is the effect existent? Answer: No, because being the effect of another, it has no independent essence. It is asked again: Is the effect non-existent? Answer: No, because it is an effect. It is asked again: Is it both existent and non-existent? Answer: No, because it is a single effect, and because they are not contradictory. It is asked again: Is it neither existent nor non-existent? Answer: No, because it is what is presently produced by an existing effect. The explanation of the first gate is concluded.

Second, regarding its meaning: The cause has the meaning of "existence" because it can produce. The cause has the meaning of "non-existence" because it is the cause of the effect, and because it is formed by conditions. The cause has the meaning of "both existence and non-existence" because the cause is established. The cause has the meaning of "neither existence nor non-existence" because determinately grasping any single meaning is impossible. The four gates of the effect's meaning are known by analogy to the preceding. The second gate is concluded.

Third, regarding attachment constituting an error: Question: What fault is there if a cause produces an effect? Answer: If it produces, it could either constantly produce or constantly not produce; this is how it is known: If it produces, it would constantly produce. Furthermore, if it produces, the currently existing flame-effect is [present], and the wick-cause that can produce would then have nothing to produce, hence it is [the fault of] annihilationism. It is asked again: What fault is there if the cause does not produce the effect? Answer: There are likewise two faults. If the wick-cause does not produce, then the glowing flame is causeless, hence it is [the fault of] eternalism. Furthermore, if the wick does not produce, since the flame does not produce itself, and the cause again does not produce, it could not exist, hence it is [the fault of] annihilationism. Both producing and not producing, and neither producing nor not producing, should be reflected upon by analogy; the remaining meanings can be known by analogy.

Furthermore, all causes have six meanings: 1. Empty, efficacious, and not dependent on conditions, because it perishes moment to moment. 2. Existent, efficacious, and not dependent on conditions, because it is determinate. 3. Existent, efficacious, and dependent on conditions, as it induces and manifests its own effect. 4. Non-existent, inefficacious, and dependent on conditions, through observing causes and conditions. 5. Existent, inefficacious, and dependent on conditions, because it follows along until the stage of the antidote. 6. Non-existent, efficacious, and dependent on conditions, because both are efficacious. Question: One does not know what conditions it depends on when it depends on conditions? Answer: This depends on external conditions such as the lampstand, oil, water, and earth; it does not take the causal entity or its own six meanings.

Furthermore, as for the sūtra text saying, "The cause of a cause is also the cause of a cause; the effect of an effect is also the effect of an effect": this differentiates the boundaries of cause and effect, intimate and remote, existent and non-existent, efficacy and function. The first "cause" is the direct cause. The second "cause" is the conditioning cause. "Also the cause of a cause" means that the two causes are mutually dependent. "The effect of an effect" and so forth is established through the mutual dependence of the two effects by analogy to the cause. Apart from this, causes and effects in relation to one another have no function.

Furthermore, the sovereign condition in relation to its own sovereign fruit is also considered a direct cause; hence the *Abhidharmasamuccaya-vyākhyā* incorporates remote conditions into direct causes. Furthermore, the *Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra* states that the cause-condition refers to conditioned phenomena that directly bring about their own effects. This entity has two types: 1. Seeds, 2. Manifest activity. "Seeds" refers to the different functional capacities—wholesome, defiled, and indeterminate—of the various realms and grounds within the *mūlavijñāna*, which are able to induce the immediately following functional capacity of their own kind and give rise to the simultaneous manifest effect of their own kind. These are cause-conditions solely in relation to them. "Manifest activity" refers to the seven evolving consciousnesses and the nature, realms, and grounds of the subjective and objective aspects transformed by them and their mental associates; with the exception of the wholesome fruits of buddhahood and extremely weak indeterminates, the rest perfume the *mūlavijñāna* to produce seeds of their own kind. These are natures of cause-conditions solely in relation to them. Because the mental associates of the eighth consciousness are not perfumed, they are not excluded as a support; because it alone can perfume and is extremely subtle and perfect, it does not perfume to form seeds. Homogeneous manifest activities in relation to one another are none of them cause-conditions, because they are produced from their own seeds. All heterogeneous manifest activities in relation to one another are also not cause-conditions, because they do not directly produce. Some say: Heterogeneous and homogeneous manifest activities in relation to one another are cause-conditions. One should know this is a metaphorical explanation, or a teaching given in accordance with provisional progression. Some say solely that seeds are the nature of cause-conditions; that relies on highlighting what is preeminent and does not exhaustively explain the principle, for the Noble One stated that the evolving consciousnesses and the *ālayavijñāna* in relation to one another are cause-conditions. This reveals the boundaries of cause and effect, intimate and remote, with utmost clarity and goodness.

These six meanings and the mutual establishment of principle and phenomena in cause and effect preceding them are further revealed through the six characteristics: namely, 1. Universality: universally establishing cause and effect. 2. Particularity: because the particular meanings establish universality. 3. Sameness: because their intrinsic sameness establishes universality. 4. Difference: because the various meanings are intrinsically different and manifest sameness. 5. Integration: because cause, effect, principle, and phenomena are integrated. 6. Disintegration: because the various meanings each abide in their own phenomenon without shifting from their original nature. The dependent origination explained here pervades and applies universally, being established in accordance with existent phenomena; it can be understood through examination and reflection. This text is in the triyāna, and only reaches culmination in the Ekayāna. Why? Because it accords with the dharmadhātu.