大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 66.34

66.34

疏「其十二支各初自業不異前門」下，第二釋自業。於中，先指前，不欲繁詞故；後「論主」下，舉論解釋。於中有五：一標示難故；二「然無明」下，釋難所以；三「是以十二」下，結成迷悟之依；四「論主總以」下，出論釋意，先舉論、後「意明」下疏釋；五「不見」下，結彈古釋。遠公云：「不知雖是無明，死支為主，攝屬死支。如似生時亦有結業，名為生支。即是云云。」不見論意。若以一支兼餘支者，則須無明遍於十二，何獨死中偏說無明？今明老死能生無明，故為此釋。諸德既昧，故曰云云。

On the commentary’s “The initial specific karma of each of the twelve branches does not differ from the previous gate…” below: second, explaining specific karma. In this, first it points to the preceding text, desiring not to multiply words; later, under “The author of the treatise…”, it cites the treatise to explain. In this there are five parts: 1. indicating the difficulty; 2. under “However, avidyā…”, explaining the reason for the difficulty; 3. under “Therefore the twelve…”, concluding the basis for delusion and awakening; 4. under “The author of the treatise generally…”, presenting the treatise’s intended explanation—first citing the treatise, then under “intending to clarify…” the commentary explains it; 5. under “Not seeing…”, concluding with a criticism of the ancient explanation. Venerable [Hui]yuan said: “Although unknowing is avidyā, the branch of death is principal, so it is subsumed under the branch of death. Just as at the time of birth there is also binding karma, called the branch of birth. That is so-and-so.” He did not see the intention of the treatise. If one branch encompasses the other branches, then avidyā would have to pervade all twelve; why would avidyā be spoken of only within death? Now we clarify that old age and death can produce avidyā, which is why this explanation is given. Since the masters were confused about this, it is called “so-and-so”.