[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) › 58.43 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 58.43 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 58.43 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [58.43](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.58.43) 疏「次二迷義通四住惑」者，一見一切處住地、二欲愛住地、三色愛住地、四有愛住地。上無明住地，即當第五。一五通三界，二三四即如次辨欲色無色，此上總是惑體。二「由前癡故」下，釋迷義。因緣生法離我我所，今由有我故立我所，我所即法。疏「三愛念邪見」者，未得悕欲說之為念，已得深著說之為愛。其渴鹿喻未得悕欲，其網魚喻已得之愛。而言「如今之愛支」者，過去無明亦有如今之愛取故。疏「行諂誑」下，疏文有二：先總釋、二「由上內計」下躡前生起。論經無慳則唯二過，今加一慳，故第二中有二過，合成三過。 > Regarding the Commentary's statement: 'The next two are deluded about meaning, traversing the four entrenchment defilements': (1) the entrenchment ground of views everywhere \[in the three realms\], (2) the entrenchment ground of desire attachment, (3) the entrenchment ground of form attachment, and (4) the entrenchment ground of existence attachment. The avidyā entrenchment ground above corresponds to the fifth. The first and fifth traverse the three realms; the second, third, and fourth respectively distinguish desire, form, and formlessness. All of the above are the essences of defilement. Second, from 'Due to the previous ignorance...' onward, it explains the delusion about meaning. Dharmas arisen through conditions are free from self and what belongs to a self; now, because there is a self, one establishes what belongs to a self, and what belongs to a self is dharmas. Regarding the Commentary's statement: 'The third is the wrong view of loving attachment': wishing and desiring what is not yet obtained is called 'thought'; deeply clinging to what has already been obtained is called 'love.' The metaphor of the thirsty deer illustrates the wishing and desiring what is not yet obtained; the metaphor of the netted fish illustrates the love for what has already been obtained. As for saying 'just like the present branch of craving,' it is because past avidyā also had craving and grasping just like the present. Regarding the Commentary's statement: 'Practicing flattery and deception...' and so forth: the text of the Commentary has two parts: first, a general explanation; second, from 'Due to the above internal imputation...' onward, taking up what precedes to show how it arises. Since the sūtra text of the Śāstra lacks stinginess, it has only two faults; here stinginess is added, so there are two faults within the second, combining into three faults. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 58.42](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.58.42) - [Next: 58.44](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.58.44) - [Up: 58](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.58) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.58.43) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.58.43](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.58.43) · Pramāṇa