大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 6.40

6.40

疏「然上五時等皆以約時剋定，則有所乖」等者，第三結成違順也。上結前違。而言等者，等取四三二時。疏「揀去不定，從多分說亦有理在」者，結成順也。有二義故，故得順理。一揀去不定，則無剋定之失，不違《密跡》等經。二從多分說，不違自所立義。故有理在。

Regarding the commentary's "However, when the above five periods, etc., are definitively fixed in terms of time, there are discrepancies..." and so forth, this is the third part: concluding the assessment of compatibility and incompatibility. The above concludes the preceding incompatibilities. The word "etc." encompasses the four, three, and two periods. As for the commentary's "Discarding the indeterminate and speaking from the majority portion also has reason in it," this concludes the compatibility. Because of two reasons, it conforms to principle: first, by discarding the indeterminate, there is no error of definitive temporal fixation, and it does not contradict sūtras such as the Guhyaka; second, speaking from the majority portion does not contradict the doctrine they themselves established. Therefore, there is reason in it.