大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 22.14

22.14

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.