大般涅槃經義記 8.169

8.169

次以喻顯，「如無明為因、諸行為果，行因識果」立喻顯法。「以是義」下辯喻顯法，向前法中四法相對，彰其重因累果之別。今此喻中三法相對，何故如是？喻取少分，不可全同。又為顯其所生行德因果雖殊，體無別故。「以是義」者，以前無明生行之義、行生識義。「彼無明體亦因、亦因因」者，兩法相對，無明是彼行果家因故直名因；三法相望，行支已是識果家因，無明是彼行因家因，故曰因因。文義且然，將喻擬法全不相似，准法論喻，應說行支以為因因，從因生故。准喻談法，應因緣以為因因，因家因故，蓋亦是其少分喻耳。亦可向前因緣之理非直是因，亦是因因，故今宣說無明為因及與因因以況彼義。云何為因？望涅槃果直為因故。云何因因？與觀智因而為因故。

Next it is revealed via an analogy: "Just as ignorance is the cause and formations are the effect, formations are the cause and consciousness is the effect" sets up an analogy to reveal the doctrine. "For this reason" and below distinguishes the analogy to reveal the doctrine: in the aforementioned doctrine, four dharmas are correlated to show the distinction of doubled causes and accumulated effects. Now in this analogy, three dharmas are correlated; why is it like this? The analogy takes only a partial aspect and cannot be entirely identical. Furthermore, it is to reveal that although the cause and effect of the practiced virtues produced by it are different, their substance has no distinction. "For this reason" refers to the preceding meaning of ignorance producing formations and formations producing consciousness. "That substance of ignorance is also a cause and also a cause-of-cause": when two dharmas are correlated, ignorance is the cause belonging to that effect which is formations, and hence is directly called "cause"; when the three dharmas are viewed together, the link of formations is already the cause belonging to the effect of consciousness, and ignorance is the cause belonging to that cause of formations, hence it is called "cause-of-cause". The literal sense is indeed thus, yet when bringing the analogy to match the doctrine, they do not correspond entirely: if one reasons from the doctrine to evaluate the analogy, one should say the link of formations is the cause-of-cause, because it is produced from a cause. If one reasons from the analogy to discuss the doctrine, dependent origination should be the cause-of-cause, because it is the cause of a cause; this is merely its partial analogy. It may also be that the aforementioned principle of dependent origination is not merely a cause but also a cause-of-cause, and thus it now speaks of ignorance as a cause and as a cause-of-cause to illustrate that meaning. How is it a cause? Viewed in relation to the effect of nirvāṇa, it is directly a cause. How is it a cause-of-cause? Because it acts as a cause for the cause that is contemplative wisdom.