大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 66.10

66.10

疏「大小理通」者，第二總結，亦是釋妨難。謂有問言：今釋一乘唯一心法，何以引《俱舍》為證？故為此答。一心之義，小乘立六、大有八等，則有不同。若一剎那具十二支，則大小皆具。疏「非聖教量」等者，結示令信也。自古不為此釋，今總約一念具十二，故以聖教量證非臆說矣。言「論主不解殆似疎遺」者，論主造《俱舍論》，非是不知，將為易解，故不解釋。由論不釋，令後誤解，即似疎遺。殆者近也，近似之言，顯非失矣。

As for the Commentary's "The principle is shared by both the Great and Small": this is the second [heading], the general summary, and it also resolves an objection. That is, someone may ask: "Now in explaining the One Vehicle's doctrine of only one mind, why cite the Kośa as proof?" Therefore this answer is given. Regarding the meaning of one mind, the Hīnayāna posits six and the Mahāyāna has eight, etc., so they are not identical. But regarding a single moment possessing all twelve branches, both Great and Small possess it. As for the Commentary's "Were it not for the authoritative testimony of sacred teachings" and so on: this concludes and indicates [the point] to inspire trust. From ancient times this explanation was not given; now, by generally taking a single thought-moment to possess the twelve, authoritative testimony of sacred teachings is used to prove that it is no idle speculation. Regarding the statement "The treatise master did not explain it, which almost seems like an oversight": when the treatise master composed the Abhidharmakośa-śāstra, it was not that he did not know; taking it to be easily understood, he therefore did not explain it. Because the treatise did not explain it, causing later people to misunderstand, it merely seems like an oversight. Dai means close; words of close resemblance make clear that it was not an error.