華嚴經明法品內立三寶章 1.61

1.61

第八、因果門中，亦四位：一無、二有、三俱、四泯。初中，謂此一念法，前因已滅，對誰稱果？後果未生，對誰說因？當念不住，非因非果。二、假有因果者，如論云「觀現在法有引後用，假立當果對說現因；觀現在法有酬前相，假立曾因對說現果，因果不無。」三、俱者，由有引後義故有因，由有酬前義故有果；由滅壞義故非因，由背前義故非果；由引後不異滅壞故，亦因亦非因；由酬前不異背前故，亦果亦非果。由四義合成一流轉故，具存亡二義也。四、俱泯者，由滅壞不異引後故，非因非非因；背前不異酬前故，非果非非果；此二門復不異故，非因果非非因果。又若因果先存，可得對之說非；既因果先自不成，今亦無非因果之可立，思之。

Eighth, in the gate of cause and effect, there are also four positions: 1. non-existence; 2. existence; 3. both; 4. eradication. In the first: regarding this single moment of dharma, since the prior cause has already ceased, in relation to what can it be termed an effect? Since the subsequent effect has not yet arisen, in relation to what can a cause be spoken of? The immediate moment does not abide, being neither cause nor effect. 2. Nominal existence of cause and effect: as the treatise says, 'Observing that the present dharma has the function of inducing the posterior, one nominally establishes the future effect and in relation to it speaks of a present cause; observing that the present dharma has the characteristic of requiting the prior, one nominally establishes the past cause and in relation to it speaks of a present effect. Thus cause and effect are not non-existent.' 3. Both: because of the meaning of inducing the posterior, there is a cause; because of the meaning of requiting the prior, there is an effect. Because of the meaning of destruction, it is not a cause; because of the meaning of turning away from the preceding, it is not an effect. Because inducing the posterior is not distinct from destruction, it is both cause and non-cause; because requiting the prior is not distinct from turning away from the preceding, it is both effect and non-effect. Because the four meanings unite to form a single transmigration, both meanings of preservation and eradication are fully present. 4. Mutual eradication: because destruction is not distinct from inducing the posterior, it is neither cause nor non-non-cause; because turning away from the preceding is not distinct from requiting the prior, it is neither effect nor non-non-effect; and because these two gates are furthermore not distinct, it is neither cause and effect nor non-cause and non-effect. Furthermore, if cause and effect existed previously, one could speak of their negation in contrast to them; since cause and effect are inherently unestablished from the start, there is now also no non-cause and non-effect to be established; contemplate this.