[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) › 54.26 # 大方廣佛華嚴經疏 54.26 大方廣佛華嚴經疏 54.26 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [54.26](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.54.26) 第二明缺現緣故不見，中三：初明無勝德行故不見、次「何以故」下明住自乘解脫故不見、後「是故雖在」下結成不見。今初，分二：先十句明無勝德行，即是前所不見境，亦即是前宿因不修勝進四句，不修故無，無故不見。初總、餘別。勢力，即是加持，餘皆同前。後「是故於此」下十句顯不能見。入有二義，前文約證，今約了達。餘可知。第二明住自乘故不見中，先徵、後釋。以此二段反覆相成故，徵以釋之。謂何以無如是善根等？由住自乘作證故。亦應徵云：何以作證？由無上善根故。所無在前，故略不明耳。此段亦同《法華》自釋心不喜樂，云「何以故？世尊令我等出於三界得涅槃證故。」釋文亦二：先明住自乘作證、後「於彼智慧」下結成所無。今初十句，初總、餘別。別中，一道者，以見修等道斷惑集故，不同菩薩無住道等。二三行果可知。四觀諦智別，謂我空法有，不能我有法空，名無有諦，以證現觀名決定智故。無菩薩中道第一義三諦之理，亦如《涅槃》聲聞有諦而無真實。五已證理故。六捨事故。下三句成上聲聞行，一內無悲、二外捨物、三但自調。又上十句總為四失：一初句出麁而不出細，但出分段故；次四句得權失實；次三句滯寂失悲；後二句捨生自度。二結成所無，即由住自乘故。無前智等亦有十句，但於前一智有十不能。餘三昧等，例此可知。 > Second, clarifying that they did not see because they lacked present conditions, within which there are three parts: first, clarifying that they did not see because they lacked superior virtuous practice; next, from "Why is this?" onward, clarifying that they did not see because they abided in the liberation of their own vehicle; and finally, from "Therefore, although present..." onward, concluding that they did not see. Now, the first has two parts: first, ten lines clarifying the lack of superior virtuous practice, which is the aforementioned unseen realm, and also corresponds to the four lines of the past causes concerning not having cultivated superior advancement—not having cultivated it, they lacked it, and lacking it, they did not see. The first is general, and the rest are specific. "Force" (śakti) is empowerment (adhiṣṭhāna); the rest are as before. Next, the ten lines from "Therefore, in regard to this..." onward reveal their inability to see. "Entering" has two meanings: the earlier text took it in terms of realization, whereas here it is in terms of comprehension. The rest can be understood. Second, regarding their not seeing because they abided in their own vehicle: first an inquiry, then the explanation. Because these two passages mutually corroborate each other, it inquires in order to explain. That is: Why did they lack such kuśala-mūla and the like? Because they abided in their own vehicle and attained realization. One could also inquire: Why did they attain realization \[there\]? Because they lacked the supreme kuśala-mūla. What was lacking was stated earlier, so it is briefly omitted here. This passage also parallels the Lotus Sūtra's own explanation of their minds taking no joy: "Why is this? Because the Bhagavat has caused us to escape the three realms and attain the realization of nirvāṇa." The explanatory text also has two parts: first, clarifying that they abided in their own vehicle and attained realization; and next, from "toward that wisdom..." onward, concluding with what they lacked. Now, in the first ten lines, the first is general, and the rest are specific. In the specific: First, "the path," because through the paths of seeing, cultivation, and so on, they severed the accumulation of afflictions, unlike the bodhisattvas' non-abiding path, etc. The second and third, practice and fruition, can be understood. Fourth, the wisdom that contemplates the truths is different: they held that the self is empty while dharmas exist, but were incapable of seeing that the self exists \[provisionally\] while dharmas are empty, which is termed "lacking the truth"; because realizing direct perception is called "resolute wisdom." They lacked the principle of the three truths of the bodhisattvas' paramārtha-satya of the middle way, just as the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says that śrāvakas possess the truths but lack the reality. Fifth, because they had already realized noumenon. Sixth, because they had abandoned phenomena. The following three lines establish the above śrāvaka practice: first, internally lacking compassion; second, externally renouncing living beings; third, only taming themselves. Furthermore, the above ten lines generally constitute four faults: first, the initial line escapes the coarse but does not escape the subtle, only escaping karmic rebirth (saṃsāra); the next four lines attain the provisional but lose the real; the next three lines stagnate in quiescence and lose compassion; the final two lines abandon living beings to deliver themselves alone. Second, concluding with what was lacking: that is, because they abided in their own vehicle. For lacking the aforementioned wisdom and so forth, there are also ten lines, but for the former single wisdom there are ten inabilities. The remaining samādhis and so forth may be understood by analogy with this. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 54.25](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.54.25) - [Next: 54.27](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.54.27) - [Up: 54](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.54) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735~en-mt.54.26) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.54.26](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1735.54.26) · Pramāṇa