大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 67.18

67.18

Where the commentary says, 'Because the present is witnessed before our eyes, it is divided into two directions to clarify its two meanings,' this also resolves an objection. Namely, someone might ask: 'Previously, the two causes of avidyā and saṃskāra were explained reciprocally only in relation to the present; now in clarifying the five dharmas of the present, they should also be reciprocal, so why are there two directions?' Therefore it now answers: For the previous two causes, the causes have passed away into the past, so one must speak of those causes in relation to the present; once the present fruition is established, only then does one know that those causes incurred the fruition without failure. The present now does not merely requite past causes, but can also, relying on the present, incur future fruitions; therefore it is clarified in two directions. If they were further made mutually complementary, it would not differ from the previous two. Again, one might object: 'Earlier, in speaking of avidyā, it was already said that present fruitions requite past causes; why is it now restated that these are past fruitions?' To this one should answer: Previously requiting the past was to establish the past; now speaking of past incurrence is to establish the present, so it is not redundant. For this reason, the two dharmas are clarified in two directions.