成唯識論述記 8.465

8.465

述曰：前十支因、與後二支果定不同世，以總異熟因非造之身即受果故，亦非現業得果是十二支故，約身死生為世，十因二果決定不同。若約時分，此即不定，如後報業等過去造前七，次後身未熟，今身不起愛、取，次身方起，後後生受果，豈非愛、取與生、老死同在未來？故約大時分以說三世，義即不定今，此所說約身生死以為世也。因中前七支與愛、取、有，或異世，或同世，若順生受業，受初生時，其世必同，第二生已去，乃至後報業等，世不同也，今身造業至後後世將受果時方起愛、取故。薩婆多師愛、取、有三，與前七種中初二定不同世，與次五種定得同世，於前世生、老死位中起惑造業故。今此中十二支定同世者，謂生、老死二；愛、取、有三；無明等前七，各定同世，由癡發業熏、發報種，必定同世，故前七支不得別世。起煩惱水潤先六種轉名為有，亦非異時，非起能潤隔世異時方成所潤。生及老死同世可知，故二、三、七各定同世，此即定世。十支是因，二支是果。因在過去，果或現在，或在未來；因在現在，果未來世，一往而論。二世緣起，道理而言亦三世也，過去十因，現在二果，未來二果，現在十因，即是二世十二緣起，亦可言三世，一往二世不定故可三世。若前七在過去，愛、取、有三在現在，生、老死二在未來世，即十二支通三世有，即十二支或二世三世別身造業，別身潤業，故不同小乘二因過去、五果現在、三因現在、二果未來，時分緣起決定如是。《十地論》第八卷、《十二緣生》乃至經三世緣起。同小乘者，此翻譯謬今勘梵本，與《瑜伽》等同，但言三際，謂從初際中際緣起，從中際後際緣起，非謂三世二在過去、五現在、三現在、二未來等。彼經之釋，世親所造，世親所造《十二因緣論》亦言三際，如《瑜伽》等。今三世者，此翻譯人意也。

The Commentary states: The prior ten causal links and the subsequent two resultant links are necessarily in different lifetimes, because the cause of comprehensive ripening does not receive its fruit in the very body that produced it, nor does current karma receiving its fruit constitute the twelve links. Defining a lifetime by the bodily death and rebirth, the ten causes and two fruits are definitely in different [lifetimes]. If defined by temporal duration, this is not fixed. For example, regarding karma whose ripening is experienced in subsequent lifetimes, one produced the first seven in the past, but in the immediately following body they did not ripen, nor did craving and grasping arise in the present body; only in the subsequent body do they arise, receiving the fruit in later and later births. Would not craving and grasping then be in the future along with birth and aging-and-death? Therefore, when speaking of the three time periods in terms of large spans of time, the meaning is indefinite. What is stated now defines lifetimes by the death and rebirth of the body. Among the causes, the first seven links and craving, grasping, and existence are either in different lifetimes or in the same lifetime: if it is karma whose result is experienced in the immediately next birth, at the time of taking initial rebirth, their lifetime must be the same; from the second rebirth onward, up to karma whose result is experienced in subsequent rebirths, the lifetimes are different, because one produces karma in the present body and only later, in subsequent lifetimes when about to receive the fruit, does one give rise to craving and grasping. For the Sarvāstivādin masters, the three—craving, grasping, and existence—are definitely in a different lifetime from the first two among the preceding seven kinds, and can definitely be in the same lifetime as the next five kinds, because one gives rise to defilements and creates karma within the stages of birth and aging-and-death of the prior lifetime. Now, here, that the twelve links are definitely in the same lifetime means: the two of birth and aging-and-death; the three of craving, grasping, and existence; and the prior seven of ignorance, etc., are each definitely in the same lifetime. Because ignorance generates karma and perfumes and produces the karmic seeds of ripening, they are necessarily in the same lifetime; therefore, the prior seven links cannot be in different lifetimes. The water of defilement arises to moisten the previous six kinds, transforming them to be named 'existence'; this is also not at a different time, for it is not that the arisen moistener spans a lifetime and a different time to then constitute what is moistened. That birth and aging-and-death are in the same lifetime is readily known. Therefore, the two, the three, and the seven are each definitely in the same lifetime; this determines their lifetimes. Ten links are causes and two links are fruits. When the causes are in the past, the fruits are either in the present or in the future; when the causes are in the present, the fruits are in the future: this is discussed provisionally. In terms of two-lifetime dependent origination, logically speaking it also encompasses three lifetimes: ten past causes, two present fruits, two future fruits, and ten present causes—this is the twelvefold dependent origination in two lifetimes. One may also speak of three lifetimes; because the provisional two lifetimes are indefinite, they can be three lifetimes. If the prior seven are in the past, the three of craving, grasping, and existence are in the present, and the two of birth and aging-and-death are in the future, then the twelve links extend across the three lifetimes. Thus, the twelve links involve either two lifetimes or three lifetimes—creating karma in one body and moistening karma in another body. Hence, this is not like the Hīnayāna's fixed temporal dependent origination of two causes in the past, five fruits in the present, three causes in the present, and two fruits in the future. As for the eighth fascicle of the Daśabhūmika-śāstra, the Dvādaśāṅgapratītyasamutpāda[-sūtra-vyākhyāna], and so on, taking dependent origination across three lifetimes as being identical to Hīnayāna, this was a mistranslation. Upon currently checking the Sanskrit manuscripts, they are the same as the Yogācāra[-bhūmi] and other texts, only speaking of three limits—that is, dependent origination from the initial limit to the middle limit, and dependent origination from the middle limit to the final limit—not meaning the three times of two in the past, five in the present, three in the present, and two in the future, etc. The commentary on that sūtra was composed by Vasubandhu, and Vasubandhu's Dvādaśanidāna-śāstra also speaks of the three limits, just like the Yogācāra[-bhūmi] and other texts. The present 'three times' was the idea of the translator.