本文研究發現，強調「自利」的不祇是解脫道行人；同樣是大乘行人，也有不同的根性與路線：一、如《華嚴經》中所說的「不思議解脫」，是「直入大乘」的法門；二、認為自利而後方能利他，近乎「迴入大乘」的路線。 「人間佛教」的批判者往往認為，只要重視濟世利生，就保證一定會「世俗化」乃至庸俗腐敗。實則套用自西方一神宗教的二分法，不能完全解釋人類的信仰行為──尤其是東方的宗教。中國儒釋道三家在追求與實踐「更高層次」的生命境界時，向來不以對立或隔絕的心態，來對待現實的人間世，甚且認為：聖俗只是一體兩面的不同表現。 然而「聖」與「俗」二分的觀念，終究帶入了佛教研究學群。於是，見到某些佛教人士在標榜「入世」之後趨俗、媚世，不作內修，只顧攀緣，就認為這是佛教「世俗化」的危機，或是擴大打擊面，將「人間佛教」全然等同於「世俗化」，這實在是對「世俗化」的嚴重曲解。因為趨俗、媚世來自個人心性的墮落，而非來自其對神秘境界（經理性思辨或科學驗證之後）的「除魅」。 「直入大乘」的菩薩典範，即俗而真，真俗無礙，長趨直入於佛果莊嚴的神聖境地，絕非「聖俗二分」下的凡俗鄙夫！

This study finds that not only the followers of the path to liberation emphasize “self-interest,” Mahāyāna followers may also have similar concern according to their different nature and paths: i.e. “the inconceivable liberation” mentioned in Flower Adornment Sūtra (Avatamasaka Sūtra) is an approach that gets “straight into the Mahāyāna,” while the belief that one can benefit others only when one is able to benefit him/herself first is a path similar to the path that “detours back into the Mahāyāna.” Critics of “Humanistic Buddhism” always argue that as long as Buddhism focuses its practices on providing reliefs to benefit all beings, it will easily become “secularized,” vulgarized and even corrupted. Such assumption is actually a western import of dichotomy deeply rooted in monotheistic religions, which cannot fully explain one’s religious practices-- especially Eastern ones. Even when they are pursuing and practicing a higher level of attainment in life, Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism in China never stand on the opposite side or isolate themselves from the secular world. Furthermore, for them, the sacred and the secular are just two embodiments of the same idea. However, the dichotomy between the sacred and the secular is inevitably introduced into the academic fields of Buddhist studies. Thus, Buddhism would be considered spiraling into a crisis of “secularization” when some Buddhists who advocate for more social engagement turn to be vulgarized, neglectful of meditation, and eager to establish connections with others. Worse even, such criticism may be extended more generally to equate “Humanistic Buddhism” completely with “secularized practices.” This is totally a misinterpretation to the word “secularization.” In fact, secularization and vulgarization are caused by moral degeneration of the individuals' minds rather than the individuals’ “disenchantment” of mystical experiences (through the process of reasoning or scientific verification). The compassionate Bodhisattvas, on the path “straight into the Mahāyāna,” are both secular and sacred. Free from disruptions caused by the dichotomy between the secular and the sacred, they aspire to attain the sacred solemnity of Buddhahood. They are to be regarded as the ideal and shall never be mediocre commoners described in the sacred-secular dichotomy!