大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 64.73

64.73

Regarding the commentary's statement "The Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] explains this as the cause of avidyā, and it is also subsumed under avidyā": the second meaning is that the link of avidyā must be concomitant with formations; that which arises singly and independently is not the link of avidyā. Thus this phrase is still avidyā. Hence the commentary below states: "Taking up the preceding to generate the succeeding." The treatise's sūtra text simply says: "Constantly following erroneous mindfulness, falsely practicing erroneous paths." "Erroneous mindfulness" is just an alternate name for avidyā; hence the treatise says: "'Constantly following erroneous mindfulness' indicates the cause of avidyā." Master [Hui]yuan explained: "This clarifies that formations take avidyā as their cause." As for "the Nirvāṇa explains," this refers to fascicle thirty-seven—in the southern recension, fascicle thirty-three, the chapter "Bodhisattva Kāśyapa." Because it states that avidyā is the root of all outflows, Bodhisattva Kāśyapa said: "World-Honoured One! Formerly, in the twelve divisions of scriptures, the Tathāgata stated: 'Conditioned by improper reflection, greed, hatred, and delusion arise.' Now, for what reason do you speak only of avidyā?" The Buddha replied: "Good son! These two dharmas are mutually cause and effect, mutually augmenting each other: improper reflection gives rise to avidyā, and conditioned by avidyā, improper reflection arises. Good son! Those that are capable of generating and augmenting all afflictions are all called the conditions of afflictions. Drawing close to such conditions of afflictions is called avidyā and improper reflection." Explanation: Since they mutually generate each other, it is precisely avidyā. The Yogācārabhūmi also states: "Question: If avidyā is said to have improper mental engagement as its cause, for what reason is it not stated first in the teaching on dependent origination? Answer: Because it is merely the cause of non-interruption, not the cause of defilement. Why is this? It is not that one who is not deluded gives rise to this mental engagement; the teaching on dependent origination is expounded relying on the cause of defilement. The intrinsic nature of avidyā is a defiled dharma, whereas the intrinsic nature of improper mental engagement is not defiled; therefore, it cannot defile avidyā. Yet it is defiled by the power of avidyā, and further generates defiled karma, perfumed and actuated by the power of afflictions. The initial cause of karma is called the primary dependent origination; therefore, improper mental engagement is not mentioned." Explanation: If we follow the intent of the Yogācārabhūmi, then the preceding non-cognition of ordinary beings is the avidyā that initiates karma, and improper reflection is not the essence of avidyā and is not established as a link. Here, it clarifies that what can give rise to avidyā is also subsumed under avidyā. The Yogācārabhūmi isolates the exact essence, whereas this sūtra proceeds according to the general sense. As for "taking up the preceding to generate the succeeding, cause and effect are mutually presented": here, it directly clarifies the link of formations, which is avidyā conditioning formations; hence it says "taking up the preceding to generate the succeeding," which presents its cause. The preceding directly spoke of the avidyā that initiates karma, which presents its effect. Thus it says "mutually presented." According to the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], avidyā can give rise to improper reflection, so one knows that avidyā also possesses the meaning of cause. It is just that when it serves directly as the essence of a link, it cannot be called a cause.