大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 67.19

67.19

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.