大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 64.104

64.104

疏「然名色」下，第二名色與識不相離故，如二束蘆。先正明、後「故初地」下引證。總引三文：一引前經，但云「苦芽」，不局名色。二引論釋，既名色共阿賴耶生，則知名色依現行識。三「即此後文」下，引後文證，次下當釋。以此三文，即知此中具於二支，隱於識支、顯名色耳。

Regarding the Commentary's line, 'However, name-and-form,' and so forth, second, because name-and-form and consciousness are inseparable, like two bundles of reeds. First it directly clarifies this, and then from 'Therefore the first bhūmi' onward it cites proof. It cites three texts in total: First, it cites the preceding sūtra, which merely says 'sprout of suffering,' not restricting it to name-and-form. Second, it cites the Treatise's explanation: since name-and-form arise together with the ālaya, one knows that name-and-form rely on the active consciousness. Third, from 'precisely this subsequent text' onward, it cites the subsequent text as proof, which will be explained next below. By these three texts, one knows that the two branches are fully present here, with the consciousness branch concealed and name-and-form revealed.