大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 81.55

81.55

疏「第六說三世」者，疏文有二：先釋總名、後「十中」下別釋。釋中，疏文有二：一略消經文，以文三世之中有不同故；二「然此三世」下，釋十世義。中四：一徵起、二「古人」下敘昔、三「若依」下辨違、四「今謂」下申正義。於中有三釋：一具約九世緣起相由，釋昔設用九日而為九世，於理無違；二「但以三世」下，以三世緣起相由釋；三唯就一念釋。二中，先明九世、後成十世。前中，初正明、二引證、三釋妨。今初，正明也。是《中論．破時品》意。謂小乘立有實時，菩薩以相待門破之。若因過去時有未來現在，未來現在時應名為過去。若過去時中無未來現在，未來現在時云何因過去？釋曰：此中論意以過去為因、現未為果，果由因有，故無二時。前偈縱成，則果應名因，亦因中有果；後偈奪其因，既不名為果，則果不從於因。亦應以現在為因，過未為果；未來為因，過現為果。但長行例耳，今疏具明，而以一為果、以二為因。初以過去為果、現未為因，過去果中應有因起，故下引證云「若法所因是，出法不異因，則果不異因。是果中有因也。」次「現未」下，例釋二世為果，亦各用二世為因。謂現在果因於過未，未來之果因過現也。從「是以三世各有三」者，總結。

Regarding the commentary's statement, "The sixth explains the three periods of time," the text of the commentary has two [parts]: first, it explains the general name; second, from "Within the ten" downward, it explains them separately. Within the explanation, the commentary's text has two [parts]: first, it briefly unpacks the sūtra text, because within the text of the three periods of time there are differences; second, from "However, these three periods of time" downward, it explains the meaning of the ten periods of time. Herein are four [points]: 1. it raises a question; 2. from "The ancients" downward, it recounts earlier [views]; 3. from "If relying on" downward, it distinguishes contradictions; 4. from "Now I say" downward, it presents the correct meaning. Herein there are three explanations: First, it fully explains, in terms of the mutual dependence of dependent origination across the nine periods of time, that the ancients' hypothetical use of nine days to represent nine periods of time does not contradict reason. Second, from "Merely by the three periods of time" downward, it explains in terms of the mutual dependence of dependent origination of the three periods of time. Third, it explains solely in terms of a single thought-moment. In the second, it first clarifies the nine periods of time, and afterward establishes the ten periods of time. In the former, first it directly clarifies; second, it cites evidence; third, it explains difficulties. Now the first directly clarifies. This is the intent of the "Examination of Time Chapter" of the Madhyamakaśāstra. That is, the Hīnayāna posits that there is real time; the bodhisattva refutes it through the gate of mutual relativity: If the future and the present exist dependent on the past time, the future and the present times should be called the past. If within the past time there are no future and present, how can the future and present times depend on the past? Explanation: The intent of the Madhyamakaśāstra here takes the past as the cause and the present and future as the effect; since the effect exists due to the cause, there are no two times. If the former verse grants it conditionally, then the effect should be called the cause, and there is also an effect within the cause; the latter verse deprives it of its cause, and since it is not called an effect, then the effect does not follow from the cause. One should also take the present as the cause and the past and future as the effect; the future as the cause and the past and present as the effect. The prose text merely illustrates by analogy; now the commentary fully clarifies it, taking one as the effect and two as the cause. First, taking the past as the effect and the present and future as the cause, within the past effect there should be the arising of causes; therefore below it cites evidence saying, "If the dharma from which something arises is that, / the produced dharma is not different from its cause; / then the effect is not different from the cause. This means there is a cause within the effect." Next, from "The present and future" downward, it analogously explains the two periods of time as effects, each also using two periods of time as causes. That is, the present effect is caused by the past and future, and the future effect is caused by the past and present. The words from "Therefore each of the three periods of time has three" summarize the conclusion.