大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 67.43

67.43

疏「文中亦有」下，第二釋文。「此以不他生」下，是疏釋論。論言「有分」者，分即支也。從「二者非自作緣生故」者，亦是論文，餘皆疏釋。言「非謂四緣之因緣也」者，此句揀濫。以古德釋云：無明望行無因緣義。而言因緣者，有二義：一自種為因，無明為緣，此二合說，故云因緣。然隱此親種、顯彼勝緣，故云無明因緣也。二但彼增上緣，望自增上果，還是親因，故說無明為行因緣。此解失意，故今揀之。若取有力增上，揀無力增上為親因者，於理則可然，亦非因緣，故為失意也。疏後例餘者，謂其餘支及與逆觀。謂順觀尚即自他不生，逆觀豈有自他可滅？

In the commentary, from 'In the text there is also' downward, the second part explains the text. From 'This uses not arising from other' downward is the commentary explaining the treatise. The treatise says 'members' (youfen): fen means branch. From 'Second, not being made by oneself because of arising from conditions' is also the text of the treatise, and the rest is the commentary's explanation. The phrase 'not meaning the cause-condition among the four conditions' eliminates confusion. For ancient masters explained: ignorance viewed in relation to karmic formations lacks the meaning of cause-condition. When it is called cause-condition, there are two meanings: 1) one's own seed is the cause, and ignorance is the condition; these two are spoken together, hence called cause-condition. However, concealing this direct seed and revealing that superior condition, it is called the cause-condition of ignorance. 2) Merely that sovereign condition, viewed in relation to its own sovereign effect, is still the direct cause, and therefore ignorance is said to be the cause-condition of karmic formations. This explanation loses the intent, and hence is now eliminated. If taking the potent sovereign [condition] and setting aside the impotent sovereign [condition] as direct cause, in principle this would be acceptable, but it is still not a cause-condition; hence it loses the intent. When the commentary afterward treats the rest by analogy, it means the remaining branches as well as reverse contemplation. For forward contemplation already means non-arising from self or other; in reverse contemplation, how could there be a self or other to be ceased?