般若波羅蜜多心經贊 1.53

1.53

三約世、地辨其同異有其二義，一、約地辨同異，二、約世辨同異。地同異者，如彼論說，諸緣起支皆依自地有所發行，依他無明如下無明發上地行，不爾，初伏下地染著，所起上定應非行支，彼地無明由未起故。世同異者，如彼論說，此十二支，十因、二果定不同世，因中前七與愛、取、有或異或同。若二、三、七各定同世，如是十二一重因果足顯輪轉及離斷、常，施設兩重實為無用，或應過此便致無窮。解曰，論依先申自宗一重緣起，破薩婆多兩重緣起，尋即可知。自餘諸門，廣如彼說。

Third, determining their identity and difference in terms of times and planes has two aspects: first, determining identity and difference in terms of planes; second, determining identity and difference in terms of times. Regarding identity and difference of planes, as that treatise says, all limbs of dependent origination produce karmic activity based on their own plane, or based on the ignorance of another [plane], as when the ignorance of a lower [plane] generates the karmic activity of a higher plane. If this were not so, when first subduing the defiled attachments of a lower plane, the higher concentrations that are aroused would not be the limb of karmic activity, because the ignorance of that [higher] plane has not yet arisen. Regarding identity and difference of times, as that treatise says, among these twelve limbs, the ten causes and two fruits definitely belong to different times; among the causes, the first seven and craving, grasping, and existence are either in different or the same [times]. If [the groups of] two, three, and seven are each definitely of the same time, then twelve limbs comprising one tier of cause and effect are sufficient to reveal samsaric transmigration and departure from annihilationism and eternalism, and establishing two tiers is truly useless, or else exceeding this would lead to infinite regress. The explanation says: the treatise relies on first setting forth its own school's single tier of dependent origination to refute the Sarvāstivāda's two tiers of dependent origination, which can be known upon examination. The remaining various headings are detailed as in that work.