大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 64.73

64.73

疏「涅槃說此為無明因亦無明攝」者，第二意，為無明支要與行俱，獨頭起者非無明支。則此一句猶是無明。故下疏云「躡前起後」。論經但云「恒隨邪念妄行邪道」，邪念即是無明異名，故論云「恒隨邪念，示無明因。」遠公釋云：「明行用無明為因。」言「涅槃說」者，即三十七經，南經三十三〈迦葉菩薩品〉。因說無明是一切諸漏根本，迦葉菩薩言：「世尊！如來昔於十二部經說言：不善思惟因緣，生於貪欲瞋癡。今何因緣乃說無明？」佛言：「善男子！如是二法互為因果，互相增長，不善思惟生於無明，無明因緣生不善思惟。善男子！其能生長諸煩惱者，皆悉名為煩惱因緣。親近如是煩惱因緣，名為無明不善思惟。」釋曰：既互相生，故即無明。《瑜伽》亦云「問：若說無明以不如理作意為因，何因緣故於緣起教中不先說耶？答：彼唯是不斷因，非雜染因故。所以者何？非不愚者起此作意，依雜染因說緣起教。無明自性是染污法，不如理作意自性非染污故，彼不能染污無明。然由無明力所染污，又生雜染業，煩惱力之所熏發。業之初因謂初緣起，是故不說不如理作意。」釋曰：若《瑜伽》意，則前凡夫無智是起業無明，不善思惟非無明體，不立為支。今明能生無明，亦無明攝。瑜伽剋體，此經從通。言「躡前起後因果互舉」者，此中正明行支，即無明緣行，故云躡前起後，即舉其因；前正說起業無明，即舉其果。故云互舉。若準《涅槃》，無明能生不善思惟，則知無明亦有因義。正為支體，不可說因耳。

Regarding the commentary's statement "The Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] explains this as the cause of avidyā, and it is also subsumed under avidyā": the second meaning is that the link of avidyā must be concomitant with formations; that which arises singly and independently is not the link of avidyā. Thus this phrase is still avidyā. Hence the commentary below states: "Taking up the preceding to generate the succeeding." The treatise's sūtra text simply says: "Constantly following erroneous mindfulness, falsely practicing erroneous paths." "Erroneous mindfulness" is just an alternate name for avidyā; hence the treatise says: "'Constantly following erroneous mindfulness' indicates the cause of avidyā." Master [Hui]yuan explained: "This clarifies that formations take avidyā as their cause." As for "the Nirvāṇa explains," this refers to fascicle thirty-seven—in the southern recension, fascicle thirty-three, the chapter "Bodhisattva Kāśyapa." Because it states that avidyā is the root of all outflows, Bodhisattva Kāśyapa said: "World-Honoured One! Formerly, in the twelve divisions of scriptures, the Tathāgata stated: 'Conditioned by improper reflection, greed, hatred, and delusion arise.' Now, for what reason do you speak only of avidyā?" The Buddha replied: "Good son! These two dharmas are mutually cause and effect, mutually augmenting each other: improper reflection gives rise to avidyā, and conditioned by avidyā, improper reflection arises. Good son! Those that are capable of generating and augmenting all afflictions are all called the conditions of afflictions. Drawing close to such conditions of afflictions is called avidyā and improper reflection." Explanation: Since they mutually generate each other, it is precisely avidyā. The Yogācārabhūmi also states: "Question: If avidyā is said to have improper mental engagement as its cause, for what reason is it not stated first in the teaching on dependent origination? Answer: Because it is merely the cause of non-interruption, not the cause of defilement. Why is this? It is not that one who is not deluded gives rise to this mental engagement; the teaching on dependent origination is expounded relying on the cause of defilement. The intrinsic nature of avidyā is a defiled dharma, whereas the intrinsic nature of improper mental engagement is not defiled; therefore, it cannot defile avidyā. Yet it is defiled by the power of avidyā, and further generates defiled karma, perfumed and actuated by the power of afflictions. The initial cause of karma is called the primary dependent origination; therefore, improper mental engagement is not mentioned." Explanation: If we follow the intent of the Yogācārabhūmi, then the preceding non-cognition of ordinary beings is the avidyā that initiates karma, and improper reflection is not the essence of avidyā and is not established as a link. Here, it clarifies that what can give rise to avidyā is also subsumed under avidyā. The Yogācārabhūmi isolates the exact essence, whereas this sūtra proceeds according to the general sense. As for "taking up the preceding to generate the succeeding, cause and effect are mutually presented": here, it directly clarifies the link of formations, which is avidyā conditioning formations; hence it says "taking up the preceding to generate the succeeding," which presents its cause. The preceding directly spoke of the avidyā that initiates karma, which presents its effect. Thus it says "mutually presented." According to the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], avidyā can give rise to improper reflection, so one knows that avidyā also possesses the meaning of cause. It is just that when it serves directly as the essence of a link, it cannot be called a cause.