大般涅槃經義記 8.170

8.170

言「識亦果、亦果果」者，兩法相對，識支是彼因家之果故直名果；三法相望，行支望前已是果竟，識支是彼果家之果，故名果果。文義且然，將喻擬法而不相當。准法驗喻，行支亦果，識支果果。准喻論法，涅槃名果果，此亦是其少分言耳。亦可於彼涅槃之上具有果義及果果義，故今宣說識支為果及與果果以況彼義。云何為果？望彼因緣直為果故。云何果果？與菩提果而為果故。「佛性亦爾」合以顯法。

As for the statement "Consciousness is also an effect and also an effect-of-effect": when two dharmas are correlated, the link of consciousness is the effect belonging to that cause, and hence is directly called "effect"; when the three dharmas are viewed together, the link of formations is already an effect relative to the preceding, and the link of consciousness is the effect belonging to that effect, hence it is called "effect-of-effect". The literal sense is indeed thus, yet when bringing the analogy to match the doctrine, they do not correspond. If one tests the analogy by standard of the doctrine, the link of formations is also an effect, and the link of consciousness is an effect-of-effect. If one discusses the doctrine by standard of the analogy, nirvāṇa is called an effect-of-effect; this too is merely its partial phrasing. It may also be that nirvāṇa possesses both the meaning of effect and the meaning of effect-of-effect, and thus it now speaks of the link of consciousness as an effect and as an effect-of-effect to illustrate that meaning. How is it an effect? Viewed in relation to that dependent origination, it is directly an effect. How is it an effect-of-effect? Because it acts as an effect for the effect that is bodhi. "The buddha-nature is likewise" applies [the analogy] to reveal the doctrine.