[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) › 38.13 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 38.13 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 38.13 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [38.13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.38.13) 疏「問：八遠離生死」等者，上正釋文，此下料揀。答有三意：初一約二利說、二唯約利他、三約悲智。然悲智多約悲明利他、智約自利。如實義者，自他皆具，如悲濟九類、智了無生，而可度者，即一向利他。有悲無智即墮愛見，有智無悲即滯二乘。無智不能觀空，無悲不能起行，多約自利，故與初別。然前釋樂住生死具悲智二意，今為對遠離義，故但舉悲，故樂住生死。「瑜伽」下，引文證顯，引《瑜伽》證厭離義。恐有誤解，謂唯二乘有厭離，故闇引二經雙證二義：一即《淨名》舍利弗章，已如前引；二「不動真際」，即《大品》意及《智論》文。言「成不住道」者，上釋是俱住義，由俱不住，故能雙住。由不住生死，故能住涅槃；由不住涅槃，故能住生死等，前已廣說。 > Commentary: 'Question: 8. Being distant from birth and death' and so forth: the above directly explained the text; below this is an analysis. The answer contains three intentions: first, explained in terms of the two benefits; second, explained solely in terms of benefiting others; third, explained in terms of compassion and wisdom. However, compassion and wisdom are mostly explained with compassion as benefiting others and wisdom as self-benefit. According to the genuine meaning, both self and others are possessed: such as compassion rescuing the nine categories \[of beings\] and wisdom comprehending non-arising; yet those who can be saved are exclusively for benefiting others. Having compassion without wisdom leads to falling into attachment and views; having wisdom without compassion leads to stagnating in the two vehicles. Without wisdom, one cannot contemplate emptiness; without compassion, one cannot give rise to practice—this is mostly in terms of self-benefit, and hence differs from the first. However, the earlier explanation of delighting in dwelling in birth and death contained both intentions of compassion and wisdom; now, in contrast to the meaning of being distant, it only mentions compassion, hence 'delighting in dwelling in birth and death'. Under 'Yogācāra', text is cited as proof: citing the Yogācārabhūmi to prove the meaning of revulsion. Fearing a misunderstanding that only the two vehicles have revulsion, it implicitly cites two sutras to jointly prove both meanings: one is the Śāriputra chapter of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, as cited previously; the other is 'not moving from the true reality', which is the intent of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā and the text of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra. Regarding 'Accomplishing the path of non-abiding': the above explanation is the meaning of abiding in both; because of non-abiding in both, one is able to abide in both. By not abiding in birth and death, one is able to abide in nirvāṇa; by not abiding in nirvāṇa, one is able to abide in birth and death, and so forth, as has been explained in detail previously. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 38.12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.38.12) - [Next: 38.14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.38.14) - [Up: 38](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.38) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.38.13) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.38.13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.38.13) · Pramāṇa