大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 67.25

67.25

疏「於已作業既有潤未潤殊斯為異因」者，下第二結酬外難。上立三過，語雖影略，總相皆由無異因故。異因即我。今明不要我為異因，即已造已潤不得對治而為異因。此語是前，說過後論。論出三過竟云「此三種過，以見過去世等異因故，受生報等差別故。」釋曰：上論總出其過，總明答之。今出過所以竟，方用結酬。

Regarding the Commentary's line "Since in already performed karma there is the distinction between moisturized and unmoisturized, this constitutes a different cause": below is the second part, concluding with a response to the external objection. In the three faults established above, although the phrasing is concise, their general character is entirely due to having no different cause. A different cause is the self. Now it clarifies that it does not require a self to be a different cause: rather, having already been created, already been moisturized, and not having obtained an antidote constitute the different cause. These words come from the treatise after it states the faults. Having set forth the three faults, the treatise says: "These three kinds of faults are because, seeing a different cause such as past periods, there are distinctions such as receiving retribution in the next birth." Explanation: above, the treatise generally sets forth its faults and generally clarifies the answer to them. Now, having set forth the reasons for the faults, it only then uses this to conclude the response.