大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 66.27

66.27

疏「瑜伽論說諸支相望無因緣者」下，二會大論第十說有三緣，無有因緣。上牒大論。從「依現愛取唯業有說」，會上有義。大論言無，上具說有。上有四位不定假說，此不須會，但會二位實有因緣也。「依現愛取」者，會前愛望於取有因緣義。彼以愛增為取，種生現故得為因緣。今以現行之愛望現行取，非從自種，安得因緣？言「唯業有說」者，會前有望於生，得為因緣。前以識種起生現行，得為因緣。今以業種為有而起於生，業非識體但為增上，安為因緣？故《瑜伽》云「何故相望皆無因緣？答：因緣者，自體種子因所顯故。今現行愛取非是種子，以業望生非自體故。」大乘法師云：若無此論，難解《瑜伽》。

From the commentary's "The Yogācārabhūmi states that the links lack a causal condition in relation to one another" downward is the second [section], reconciling with the tenth fascicle of the Great Treatise stating that there are three conditions and no causal condition. The above quotes the Great Treatise. From "explained based on active craving and clinging, and on becoming being solely karma", it harmonizes with the meaning of existence above. The Great Treatise says they are absent, while above it was fully explained that they are present. Above, there are four states of indeterminate nominal explanation; these do not need reconciliation, but only reconciling the two states that actually have a causal condition. "Based on active craving and clinging" reconciles the previous sense that craving has a causal condition with respect to clinging. That took craving intensifying into clinging, and because a seed generates an active manifestation, it can serve as a causal condition. Now, taking active craving with respect to active clinging, since it does not arise from its own seed, how could it have a causal condition? The statement "explained based on becoming being solely karma" reconciles the previous [assertion that] becoming has a causal condition with respect to birth. Previously, the seeds of consciousness giving rise to the active manifestation of birth could serve as a causal condition. Now, by taking karmic seeds to be becoming and giving rise to birth, since karma is not the essence of consciousness but only an empowering [condition], how could it be a causal condition? Hence the Yogācārabhūmi states: "For what reason do they all lack a causal condition in relation to one another? Answer: Because a causal condition is demonstrated by the cause that is its own-nature seed. Now active craving and clinging are not seeds, and because karma with respect to birth is not its own-nature." Dharma Master Dacheng says: "Without this treatise, it would be difficult to understand the Yogācārabhūmi."