大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 64.72

64.72

疏「初至有無是無明支」下，此段有五：一科經。二「無智是癡」下略釋。故論云「此示無明有愛是二有支根本故」，有愛即三有之愛也。亦同《涅槃》「生死本際凡有二種：一者無明、二者有愛，是二中間即有生老病死。」三「然依三世」下，通難釋成。應有難云：既舉二支為有支本，那得上判唯屬無明？故為此通。初「依三世」，即《俱舍》云「宿惑」，謂無明則過去，若無明若愛皆名無明。二依二世，即《唯識》文，諸惑皆能發業，豈無愛耶？四「唯取能發」下，正出其體，即《唯識》初能引後。彼論具云「此中無明唯取能發，正感後世善惡業者。即彼所發乃名為行，由此一切順現受業。別助當業皆非行支。」釋曰：即彼已下，出行支體，下文方用故引。此無明體，是見道全、修道一分。五「希常為有」下，以論釋經。論云「是中無智至有無者，希求常斷。」餘文疏釋。疏「初云不正思惟是行俱無明」者，此有二意：一者為無明支通諸煩惱，已如前明。今取正起行時迷於行過，即行俱無明，非前發業無明支攝。

Regarding the commentary's phrase "From the beginning up to 'existence and non-existence' is the link of avidyā" and what follows, this section has five parts: first, classifying the sūtra text; second, from "absence of cognition is delusion" downward, briefly explaining it. Thus the treatise says: "This indicates that avidyā and craving for existence are the roots of the two links of existence," craving for existence being craving for the three realms of existence. This also accords with the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]: "There are two primary extremes of saṃsāra: the first is avidyā, and the second is craving for existence; between these two there are birth, old age, sickness, and death." Third, from "However, relying on the three lifetimes" downward, resolving an objection and establishing the explanation. There might be an objection saying: Since both links are cited as the roots of the links of existence, how can the preceding judgment assign them solely to avidyā? Therefore he provides this resolution. First, "relying on the three lifetimes" refers to what the Abhidharmakośa calls "past defilements"; meaning that avidyā belongs to the past, and whether it is avidyā or craving, both are termed avidyā. Second, relying on the two lifetimes refers to the text of the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi: all defilements are capable of initiating karma—how could there be no craving? Fourth, from "it takes solely that which is capable of initiating" downward, directly identifying its essential nature; that is, the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi's [discussion of] the projecting [causes] preceding the projected [effects]. That treatise states in full: "Here, avidyā takes solely that which is capable of initiating, directly bringing about the wholesome and unwholesome karma of a future life. That which is initiated by it is then called formations. Consequently, all karma to be experienced in the present life, and that which separately assists future karma, are not the link of formations." Explanation: The text from "that which is initiated by it" downward identifies the essential nature of the link of formations, which is cited because it will only be used in the text below. The essence of this avidyā belongs entirely to the path of seeing and to one portion of the path of cultivation. Fifth, from "hoping for permanence is existence" downward, explaining the sūtra by means of the treatise. The treatise says: "Here, 'absence of cognition' up to 'existence and non-existence' means aspiring to permanence or annihilation." The rest of the text is explained in the commentary. Regarding the commentary's statement "The initial phrase 'improper reflection' is the avidyā concomitant with formations": this has two meanings. First, the link of avidyā pervades all afflictions, as already clarified above. Here, taking the delusion regarding the faults of formations at the very time of generating formations, this is the avidyā concomitant with formations, and is not subsumed under the prior avidyā link that initiates karma.