[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736) › 22.14 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 22.14 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 22.14 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [22.14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.22.14) 疏「若習欲成性」下，二解妨。此對《智論》若依性起欲，義如前說。若習欲成性，則欲前性後，復云何別？故以寬狹通之，則欲狹性寬。言「欲唯大地一數」者，此即《俱舍》頌通大地十法云「受想思觸欲，慧念與作意，勝解三摩地，遍於一切心。」今即十中第五欲也。言「性通諸數」者，既有貪等八萬四千心所，則廣數即心所。次引《智論》帖成正義。疏「若性即種子」下，對根辯異。於中有二：先約寬狹正通、後「以信等望果」下通於前伏難。難云：性既寬通，何不名根？答云：特由寬故，不得名根。以信等望果，三乘聖道有勝用增上，可得名根。性無此能，安得名根？上正顯竟。後「三善根」下，舉況以成。三善根是善，尚不得名根；性兼貪瞋等，何可得名根？言三善根者，但是翻三不善根，立三善根名，不同信等體相昭著，故不立為根。且依一義。若根通二十二根，則所望不同耳。根約勝用增上，性約不改。 > Regarding the Commentary's 'If habitual desire forms nature' and so forth: second, resolving objections. This addresses the \*Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa\*: if desire arises based on nature, the meaning is as explained previously; but if habitual desire forms nature, then desire precedes and nature follows, so how are they distinguished again? Thus, they are reconciled in terms of broadness and narrowness: desire is narrow, while nature is broad. Regarding 'desire is only one factor of the universal \[mental factors\],' this refers to the \*Abhidharmakośa\* verse on the ten universal mental factors: 'Sensation, ideation, volition, contact, desire, / prajñā, mindfulness, attention, / resolve, and samādhi / are pervasive across all minds.' Here it is the fifth of the ten, desire. Regarding 'nature is pervasive across all factors': since there are eighty-four thousand mental factors such as greed, 'broad number' means mental factors. Next, a passage from the \*Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa\* is quoted to substantiate the orthodox meaning. Regarding the Commentary's 'If nature is seed' and so forth: distinguishing it against faculties. Within this there are two parts: first, resolving it directly in terms of broadness and narrowness; second, from 'in terms of faith and the like directed toward the fruit' onward, resolving a previous implicit objection. The objection states: 'Since nature is broad and pervasive, why is it not called a faculty?' The reply states: 'Precisely because it is broad, it cannot be called a faculty. When faith and the like are directed toward the fruit, the noble path of the three vehicles has superior function and supremacy, so they may be called faculties. Nature lacks this capacity, so how could it be called a faculty?' The above concludes the direct explanation. Afterward, from 'the three wholesome roots' onward, an analogy is raised to establish this: the three wholesome roots are wholesome, yet they are not called faculties; how could nature, which encompasses greed, anger, and the like, be called a faculty? Regarding the three wholesome roots, they are merely named 'three wholesome roots' by reversing the three unwholesome roots; unlike faith and the like, whose essence and characteristics are clearly manifest, they are not established as faculties. This is provisionally based on one meaning. If 'faculty' is taken to encompass the twenty-two faculties, then that toward which they are directed differs. 'Faculty' is defined by superior function and supremacy; 'nature' is defined by unalterability. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 22.13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.22.13) - [Next: 22.15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.22.15) - [Up: 22](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.22) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.22.14) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.22.14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.22.14) · Pramāṇa