[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) › [大方廣佛華嚴經疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735) › 17.28 # 大方廣佛華嚴經疏 17.28 大方廣佛華嚴經疏 17.28 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [17.28](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.17.28) 第七西南方智慧者，決斷不動所以名智。頌意為顯於一切法皆能出離，文中生死涅槃皆善離故。十頌分二：初一引己勵眾；餘偈希眾同己，於中亦二：前六示迷、後三啟悟。前中亦二：初一人執，理實無人，橫計成險；餘皆法執，於中初二執世法、後三雙執世出世。今初。初二句明執，謂計蘊為實，不能觀身實相；餘皆明過，初二句執實乖理不見佛、次二句無慧不見佛、後二句但益流轉。後三雙執中亦分為二：初二執法、後一執佛。前中亦二：一立理、二起執。初中，上半假立，謂待前流轉生死以立涅槃。煩惱名諍。觸動善品，損害自他，故名為諍。此有漏法，諍隨增故，名為有諍，有彼諍故。故生死者有漏為體，無彼煩惱故稱涅槃。下半雙非，謂生死涅槃俱因煩惱假立其名，何有真實？又二互相待故俱空，二互相奪故皆寂。後偈起執，上半執、下半損。後一執佛中，亦上半執、下半損。執有三義：一佛佛相望、二三身等相望、三心佛相望。後三啟悟中亦二：初二順理之得、後一舉佛釋成。前中亦二：半偈明順理而知、餘顯順知之益。益中亦二：半偈標、一偈釋。云何超言？若取知能知寂，未免於言，有所緣故。知自知知，亦非無緣，故須能所平等，等不失照，故無知之知不同木石，故云能見。後偈舉佛釋者，上云佛然，佛云何然？釋云：覺於三世，離分別故。種習斯亡，為斷根也。又亦無心，捨於分別，名為斷根。 > Seventh is Jñānamati (Wisdom) of the southwest: being decisive and immovable, he is therefore named 'Wisdom'. The verses intend to show that one can achieve transcendence from all dharmas, because in the text both saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are skillfully transcended. The ten verses are divided into two: the first one adduces himself to encourage the assembly; the remaining verses hope that the assembly will become identical with himself. There are also two within this: the first six show delusion, and the later three awaken to understanding. Within the former there are also two: the first one is the attachment to a person—in noumenal truth there is really no person, yet falsely conceptualizing one becomes a peril; the rest are all attachments to dharmas. Among these, the first two attach to mundane dharmas, and the latter three attach to both the mundane and the supramundane. Now, the first: the first two lines explain the attachment, meaning that conceptualizing the aggregates as real, one cannot contemplate the real mark of the body; the rest all explain the fault: the first two lines state that grasping at reality contrary to noumenon, one does not see the Buddha; the next two lines state that lacking wisdom, one does not see the Buddha; the final two lines state that this only increases transmigration. Within the latter three on dual attachment, they are also divided into two: the first two attach to dharmas, and the latter one attaches to the Buddha. In the former there are also two: first, establishing the principle; second, giving rise to attachment. In the first: the first half provisionally establishes, meaning that nirvāṇa is established relative to the preceding transmigration in saṃsāra. Affliction is called 'strife'. Because it agitates wholesome qualities and damages self and other, it is called strife. These defiled dharmas, because strife increases accordingly with them, are called 'with strife', having that strife. Therefore, saṃsāra has the defiled as its essence; being devoid of those afflictions, it is termed nirvāṇa. The second half negates both, meaning that both saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are provisionally established names caused by afflictions, so how could there be any reality to them? Furthermore, because the two are mutually relative, they are both empty; because the two mutually divest each other, they are both serene. The subsequent verse gives rise to attachment: the first half is the attachment, and the second half is the detriment. In the latter verse on attaching to the Buddha, the first half is also the attachment and the second half is the detriment. Attachment has three meanings: first, looking from Buddha to Buddha; second, looking among the three bodies and so forth; third, looking between mind and Buddha. In the latter three on awakening to understanding, there are also two: the first two are the gains from conforming to noumenon, and the latter one adduces the Buddha to explain and establish it. In the former there are also two: half a verse explains knowing by conforming to noumenon, and the rest show the benefits of conforming knowledge. Within the benefits there are also two: half a verse states them, and one verse explains them. How does one transcend speech? If one grasps that knowing is capable of knowing serenity, one still does not escape speech, because there is an object of cognition. If one knows that self knows knowing, this also is not without an object of cognition. Therefore, subject and object must be equal; being equal, it does not lose illumination, so the knowing of non-knowing is not like wood or stone; hence it says 'able to see'. As for the latter verse adducing the Buddha to explain: above it was said that the Buddha is thus; how is the Buddha thus? It is explained: he awakens to the three times, because he is free from conceptual discrimination. That seeds and habits are all extinguished means severing the root. Moreover, having no mind and relinquishing conceptual discrimination is called severing the root. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 17.27](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.17.27) - [Next: 17.29](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.17.29) - [Up: 17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.17) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735~en-mt.17.28) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [俱舍論頌疏論本](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1823.1.75) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.17.28](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.17.28) · Pramāṇa