大方廣佛華嚴經疏 40.7

40.7

第六三際輪迴。初約相諦名護過觀，謂說三際，護三過故。三際不同，諸教三說：一依唯識，合能所引、開能所生故，前十現在、後二未來，十因二果定不同世。因中前七與愛等三或同或異，謂生報定同、後報便異。若二三七，各定同世。如是一重因果，足顯輪轉及離斷常。此則但以二世具十二支，不許三世兩重因果。若爾，云何三際？今之二果乃是前際十因之果。二依《智論》、《俱舍》生引俱開，初二過去、次八現在、後二未來，故成三世。現八之中，前五是果酬於過去，後三是因復招未來，則二重因果各具三道，可得抗行。三依此經意明三世，故開能所引為前中際。為遮前七定同世故，復示眾明迷本際故。二屬過去，合能所生，總為後際。為遮愛等但是潤故，示因招果，令厭因故以因從果。五屬未來，則能所引生及所發潤皆容互有。經無生死者，同許為果，略不明之，論經具也。明文昭然，何為唯取二世不受三耶？已知大意，次正釋文。文有順逆。順中有二：先明一往三世、後「於是」下明流轉三世。今初，云無明緣行是觀過去者，觀有二義：一觀現在生是過去二因所作、二則知識等是彼過去當來之果。因果相屬反覆相成，如是方名見過去因義，能防三過。言識乃至受是觀現在者，亦有二義：一觀現在識等由過業得；二復知識等能得未來果報，以不得對治依起愛等故、現在目覩故，分兩向明其二義。言愛乃至有是觀未來者，此未來因決得來果，一往定故。二流轉三世者，謂不得對治復有後世，於後世上轉生後世，後後無窮。已知三際，云何護過？謂外與內因緣之法立三種過：一者一切身一時生過。何以故？無異因故。此過從前自因而生，謂既無自在等而為異因，唯無明行為識等因。行有多種，何以不得六道齊生？二者自業無受報過。何以故？無作者故。此過從於無作緣生，作者即我。三者失業過。何以故？未受果報，業已謝故。此過從於無常緣生。此上辨過。云何護耶？若見三際則能護之。然過去業有三種義，故不得報：一未作、二作已未潤、三得對治。今無明緣行則顯已作，現識等五則顯已潤，已受愛取有三則知未得對治。於已作業既有潤未潤，殊斯為異因，已潤則受生報、未潤則受後報。潤未潤殊，豈得六道一時齊受？此為異因，何用自在？既自造異因、自招二報，非他身受，何言自業無受報耶？假者自造，何用我耶？若已作業不得對治，潤則便生，知業不失。因雖先滅，勢力續故，現見得報，不可言失。三過度矣。後「無明滅」下逆觀，即得對治義。此滅則彼滅，是觀待斷。又因觀能滅，揀自性滅，故云觀待。然十二緣三世並備，但隨化迹隱顯分三，令知過去因招今苦器。今斷愛等，當果不生，則愚癡絕命於慧刃、愛水焦乾於智火，高羅四開於六趣、無生超逸於八極矣。二約大悲隨順觀，治異道求中無因之見，示三際因果，既先際二是中際五因，中際之三是後際二因，若無如是等事，眾生亦無。斯因有矣，何得言無？三約一切相智中當力無力信入依觀，論云「先中後際化勝故。」謂此三際為因義邊皆名有力，為果義邊名為無力。若約三世，前際於現五有力、於當二無力，中際愛等於當二有力、於現無力。以斯三際化彼凡夫，令信入依行，化中之勝。如是窮究，為種智境。

Sixth is the transmigration through the three limits. First, in terms of the examination of characteristics, it is named the 'contemplation that protects against faults', meaning that explaining the three limits protects against three faults. The three limits are not the same; various teachings give three explanations: First, according to Vijñaptimātra, combining the projector and projected and opening the generator and generated, the first ten are present and the last two are future, so the ten causes and two fruits definitely belong to different periods. Among the causes, the first seven and the three of craving and the rest are either the same or different; that is, retribution in the next life is definitely the same, while retribution in subsequent lives is different. If taken as two, three, and seven, each definitely belongs to the same period. Such a single tier of cause and effect is sufficient to reveal transmigration and separation from annihilation and permanence. Thus, this merely uses two time periods to encompass the twelve links, and does not admit two tiers of cause and effect across three time periods. If so, how can there be three limits? The present two fruits are in fact the fruits of the ten causes of the past limit. Second, according to the Upadeśa (Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa) and the Kośa (Abhidharmakośa), both projecting and generating are opened: the first two are past, the middle eight are present, and the last two are future, thus forming three time periods. Among the present eight, the first five are fruits that requite the past, and the latter three are causes that further incur the future; thus the two tiers of cause and effect each possess the three paths, and can run parallel. Third, according to the intention of this sūtra, three time periods are elucidated; hence it opens the projector and projected into the past and middle limits. In order to ward off the view that the first seven definitely belong to the same period, it further indicates that sentient beings are deluded about the primordial limit. Two belong to the past; it combines the generator and generated, collectively making them the future limit. In order to ward off the view that craving and the rest merely moisten, it shows the cause incurring the fruit so as to make them weary of the cause, thus following the fruit from the cause. Five belong to the future; then the projector, the projected, the generator, and what is initiated and moistened may all mutually occur. That the sūtra lacks birth and death is because both are acknowledged to be fruits, so they are omitted and not elucidated; the treatise text has them in full. The explicit text is brilliant and clear; why should one only accept two periods and not three? Having grasped the general meaning, we next explain the text directly. The text has forward and reverse orders. In the forward, there are two parts: first, explaining the provisional three periods; second, from 'whereupon' downward, explaining transmigration through the three periods. As for the first, stating that ignorance conditioning formations is contemplating the past has two meanings: first, contemplating that present birth is made by the two past causes; second, knowing that consciousness and the rest are the future fruits of that past. Cause and effect belong to each other and mutually establish one another in reverse; only in this way is it named seeing the meaning of past causes, capable of preventing three faults. Stating that consciousness up to sensation is contemplating the present also has two meanings: first, contemplating that present consciousness and the rest are obtained through past karma; second, further knowing that consciousness and the rest are able to obtain future fruits and retributions, because when an antidote is not obtained, craving and the rest arise dependent upon them, and because they are witnessed in the present; thus it divides into two directions to elucidate its two meanings. Stating that craving up to existence is contemplating the future means that these future causes definitely obtain future fruits, being provisionally determined. Second, as for transmigration through the three periods, it means that failing to obtain an antidote, there is again a future life, and upon that future life another future life is generated in turn, endlessly succeeding one another. Having understood the three limits, how do they protect against faults? Heterodox critics raise three kinds of faults against the Buddhist dharma of causes and conditions: First, the fault of all bodies being born at one time. Why is this? Because there is no differentiated cause. This fault arises from the previous explanation of own-cause; that is, since there is no Īśvara or the like serving as a differentiated cause, and only ignorance and formations serve as the cause for consciousness and the rest, and formations are manifold, why should the six destinies not all arise simultaneously? Second, the fault that one's own karma has no one to receive retribution. Why is this? Because there is no agent. This fault arises from conditioned arising being without an agent; the agent is the self. Third, the fault of karma being lost. Why is this? Because before the retribution is received, the karma has already passed away. This fault arises from conditioned arising being impermanent. The above identifies the faults. How are they protected against? If one sees the three limits, one can protect against them. However, past karma has three meanings whereby it does not receive retribution: first, not yet performed; second, already performed but not yet moistened; third, obtaining an antidote. Now, ignorance conditioning formations reveals that it is already performed; the present five of consciousness and the rest reveal that it is already moistened; having already received the three of craving, grasping, and existence, one knows that an antidote has not yet been obtained. With respect to karma already performed, since there is a distinction between being moistened and unmoistened, this constitutes the differentiated cause: when already moistened, one receives retribution in the next life; when unmoistened, one receives retribution in subsequent lives. With the distinction between moistened and unmoistened, how could the six destinies be received simultaneously at one time? This is the differentiated cause; what need is there for Īśvara? Since one creates differentiated causes oneself and incurs two retributions oneself, and they are not received by another's body, why say that one's own karma has no one to receive retribution? The nominal agent creates it oneself; what need is there for a self? If karma already performed does not obtain an antidote, once moistened it immediately generates, so one knows karma is not lost. Although the cause ceased earlier, because its power continues and one presently witnesses the obtaining of retribution, it cannot be said to be lost. The three faults are transcended. Next, from 'with the cessation of ignorance' downward is the reverse contemplation, which is the meaning of obtaining the antidote. When this ceases, that ceases: this is cessation through relativity. Furthermore, because contemplation can effect cessation, distinguishing it from cessation by own-nature, it is said to be relative. However, the twelve links are fully present in the three periods; they are merely divided into three according to the manifestations of teaching, revealing or concealing, to cause one to know that past causes incur the present vessel of suffering. Now severing craving and the rest, future fruits will not arise; then ignorance meets its demise beneath the blade of wisdom, the water of craving is parched by the fire of wisdom, the lofty net is opened on four sides across the six destinies, and birthlessness transcends beyond the eight extremities. Second, in terms of the contemplation conforming to great compassion, it cures the view of causelessness among heterodox pursuits, showing the cause and effect of the three limits: since the two of the past limit are the cause of the five of the middle limit, and the three of the middle limit are the cause of the two of the future limit, if there were no such matters, sentient beings would also not exist. Since these causes exist, how could one say they are causeless? Third, in terms of the wisdom of all modes, it corresponds to the contemplation of entering reliance with faith regarding efficacy and inefficacy; the treatise states: 'Because the conversion of the past, middle, and future limits is superior.' This means that in terms of being causes, these three limits are all called efficacious; in terms of being fruits, they are called inefficacious. If according to the three time periods, the past limit is efficacious with respect to the present five and inefficacious with respect to the future two; the middle limit's craving and the rest are efficacious with respect to the future two and inefficacious with respect to the present. Using these three limits to transform those ordinary beings, causing them to believe, enter, rely, and practice, is superior among conversions. Investigating thoroughly in this manner constitutes the realm of the wisdom of all modes.