成唯識論述記 8.467

8.467

述曰：十因、二果但是一重，因一果一故，非如小乘二世因、二世果，二重因果也。問小乘曰：何勞三世二重因果？小乘答曰：謂有外道撥無過、未，說法自然、常我等生。愚三際故，說有緣起；無前際故，說諸法常；無後際故，說諸法斷。今說二因在過去，有過去世因，業而生法，非自然常我等起，體非常住，有因所生，有未來二果，破法後斷，非即解脫，體輪轉故。現五果三因故，非自然起，後有因生，故說二重三世因果。今破之，如我十二一重因果，足顯生死輪轉，非我自然等生，體自解脫，及離斷、常，施設二重實為無益，說十支因，破法常我，自然等生，有二果故，非性解脫。過去為因，法體非常；未來為果，諸法非斷。現果，有因起；現因，必招報，足顯輪轉及離斷、常。但說因果一重，即顯三世俱有，言因破常，言果破斷，故設二重，實為無用。若言愚前際說過去二因，更有愚於前前際者，二因猶少，更應說因，有愚未來說二果者，更有愚於後後際者，二果未足，更應說果，故論說言或應過此，若但破斷、常，說一重因果已，破常斷訖，即顯過去前前亦爾，今顯未來後後亦爾，何勞有二重說三世因果？若爾，應更立便致無窮，既爾，過此若更立之有無窮失，故說一重實為有用。

The Commentary states: The ten causes and two fruits are merely a single tier, because there is one cause and one fruit; it is not like the Hīnayāna's two tiers of cause and effect with two lifetimes of causes and two lifetimes of fruits. One asks the Hīnayāna: 'Why go to the trouble of two tiers of cause and effect across three lifetimes?' The Hīnayāna answers: 'Because there are non-Buddhists who deny the past and future, asserting that phenomena arise spontaneously, or from an eternal self, and so forth. Because they are deluded about the three limits, dependent origination is taught: because they deny the prior limit, they assert that all phenomena are eternal; because they deny the final limit, they assert that all phenomena are annihilated. Now we teach that two causes are in the past: there being causes in the past lifetime, phenomena arise through karma, not spontaneously or from an eternal self, etc.; their substance is not permanent, being born from causes. There being two future fruits refutes that phenomena are annihilated thereafter: it is not immediate liberation, because their substance transmigrates. Because of the present five fruits and three causes, they do not arise spontaneously, but arise from causes leading to future existence. Therefore, we teach two tiers of cause and effect across three lifetimes.' Now we refute them: Our twelve links as a single tier of cause and effect are fully sufficient to show the transmigration of birth and death, that they do not arise from a self or spontaneously, that their substance is not intrinsically liberated, and to depart from annihilationism and eternalism. Positing two tiers is truly useless. Teaching the ten links as cause refutes the eternal self and spontaneous arising of phenomena; because there are two fruits, they are not naturally liberated. Past being cause, the substance of phenomena is impermanent; future being fruit, phenomena are not annihilated. Present fruits arise from causes; present causes inevitably incur retribution: this fully suffices to demonstrate transmigration and freedom from annihilation and eternity. Merely teaching a single tier of cause and effect already reveals that all three lifetimes exist: stating 'cause' refutes eternity, and stating 'fruit' refutes annihilation. Therefore, setting up two tiers is truly useless. If it is said that out of delusion about the prior limit two past causes are taught, then for those who are further deluded about the limit prior to that, two causes are still too few, and more causes should be taught; if for those deluded about the future two fruits are taught, then for those further deluded about the limit after that, two fruits are not enough, and more fruits should be taught. Hence the treatise says: 'or one should exceed this.' If merely to refute annihilation and eternity, having taught a single tier of cause and effect, one has already refuted eternity and annihilation; this shows that the past and what precedes it are also like this, and now shows that the future and what follows it are also like this. Why go to the trouble of having two tiers to teach cause and effect across three lifetimes? If so, one should establish more, which would lead to an infinite regress. Since this is so, if one establishes further beyond this, there is the fault of infinite regress; therefore, teaching a single tier is truly useful.