[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736) › 67.19 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 67.19 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 67.19 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [67.19](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.67.19) 疏「此未來因決得來果一往定故」者，上句釋成，亦是通難。謂有難言：現在愛等從果名未，過去無明等何不從果而名現耶？故今答云：來果未至，從果名未。知其決得，令其生厭。過因已謝，何得名現？復應問言：現在愛等從果名未，現在識等應從因名過。亦如向答：未因決得，故從果名未。現在已得，何要名過？復應問言：釋前過現反覆兩向，今辨未來何以但將因對果耶？答：前二經文直說過現、不說相成，故論相成。今此經文，經自將現對於未來，故論不釋。言「一往定」者，結成上義。謂說一分三世名為一往，理數如是，稱之為定。對下展轉，故云一往，是一向理故。 > Where the commentary says, 'Because these future causes definitely obtain future fruitions, it is provisionally fixed,' the first phrase explains and establishes it, and it also resolves a difficulty. That is, someone might object: 'If the present tṛṣṇā and so forth are named future from their fruition, why are past avidyā and so forth not named present from their fruition?' Therefore it now answers: The future fruition has not yet arrived, so it is named future from its fruition. Knowing that it is definitely obtained causes one to generate disgust. The past cause has already passed away, so how could it be named present? Again, one might ask: 'If present tṛṣṇā and so forth are named future from their fruition, present vijñāna and so forth should be named past from their cause.' This is also as answered before: Future causes are definitely obtained, so they are named future from their fruition. The present is already obtained, so why must it be named past? Again, one might ask: 'In explaining the past and present above, there were reciprocal two directions; now in distinguishing the future, why is cause merely set against fruition?' Answer: The former two sūtra texts directly spoke of past and present without speaking of reciprocal establishment, so the treatise established them reciprocally. Now in this sūtra text, the sūtra itself sets the present against the future, so the treatise does not elaborate on it. As for 'provisionally fixed,' this concludes and establishes the meaning above. That is, speaking of one portion of the three periods is called 'provisional'; that the principle and reckoning are like this is called 'fixed.' In contrast to the successive unfolding below, it is called provisional, because it is an unidirectional principle. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 67.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.67.18) - [Next: 67.20](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.67.20) - [Up: 67](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.67) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.67.19) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.67.19](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.67.19) · Pramāṇa