大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 67.11

67.11

疏「三際不同」下，二釋三際。然《唯識》分四：一敘意。「合能所引」者，初二能引、次五所引，要一世故。「十因」下，「正立」直至「及離斷常」，皆是論文。其「生報定同、後報便異」，是義釋耳。三「此則但以」下，結成論意。故彼論次云「施設兩重實為無用，或應過此便致無窮。」釋曰：言無窮者，若愚前際，說過二因。更有愚於前前際者，二因猶少，應更說多。若謂愚於後際說二果者，亦有愚於後後際者，二果猶少，應更說多。四「若爾」下，會通彼論，成三際義。

Where the commentary says, 'The three periods are not the same,' below, this is the second, explaining the three periods. However, Vijñaptimātra divides it into four: First, narrating the intent. As for 'combining the projectors and the projected,' the first two are the projectors and the next five are the projected, which must belong to one lifetime. From 'ten causes' onward, 'directly establishing' all the way to 'and parting from annihilationism and eternalism,' are all treatise text. That 'the retribution in the next life is necessarily the same, but the retribution in subsequent lives differs' is an explanatory interpretation of the meaning. Third, from 'This merely by means of...' onward, concludes and establishes the treatise's intent. Hence that treatise next states, 'Setting up a twofold tier is truly useless, or else exceeding this would lead to an infinite regress.' The explanation states: as for 'infinite regress,' if out of delusion regarding the prior period one speaks of passing beyond two causes, there may be those who are deluded regarding the period prior to the prior, so two causes would still be too few and one should speak of even more. If one says that because of delusion regarding the subsequent period one speaks of two fruitions, there may also be those who are deluded regarding the period subsequent to the subsequent, so two fruitions would still be too few and one should speak of even more. Fourth, from 'If so...' onward, reconciles with that treatise and establishes the meaning of the three periods.