大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 67.24

67.24

疏「愛取有三則知未得對治」者，謂若得對治，不應依現更起愛等。此後更有論反釋云「若斷愛取，雖有作業，則無明行不能生有。」釋曰：則顯現在亦有無明與行是所潤等。觀此論意，則過去二因具於發潤，但舉發業之名；現在愛等亦有發潤，但顯潤名。故上疏云皆容互有，思之。亦可現在愛取不潤過去後報之業，故不能生有。

Regarding the Commentary's line "The three [factors] of craving, grasping, and becoming show that it has not yet obtained an antidote": this means that if an antidote had been obtained, one should not, depending on the present, further give rise to craving and so forth. After this, there is further an inverse explanation in the treatise stating: "If one cuts off craving and grasping, even if there is the performance of karma, ignorance and formative action cannot give rise to becoming." Explanation: this reveals that in the present there are also ignorance and formative action that are what is moisturized, and so forth. Examining the intent of this treatise, the two past causes possess both initiation and moisturization, yet it mentions only the name of initiating karma; the present craving and so forth also possess both initiation and moisturization, yet it shows only the name of moisturization. Therefore, the commentary above says that each allows for the mutual presence [of both]; contemplate this. It is also possible that present craving and grasping do not moisturize past karma of subsequent retribution, and so cannot give rise to becoming.