T31n1609_大乘成業論

大正藏第 31 冊 No. 1609 大乘成業論

No. 1609 [No. 1608]

大乘成業論一卷

世親菩薩造

大唐三藏法師玄奘奉　詔譯

如處處經中世尊說。三業謂身業語業意業。此中有說身所造業故名身業。語即是業故名語業。此二皆用表與無表為其自性。意相應業故名意業。此業但以思為自性。今於此中何法名錶。且身表業形色為性。緣此為境心等所生。誰之形色謂身形色。若身形色。何故前言身所造業故名身業。謂總名身一分攝故名身形色。依身大種而發生故名身所造。以總身言于別亦轉。如世間說居邑住林。何緣復說緣此為境心等所生。為欲簡彼唇等形色。彼非緣彼心等所生。以緣言音心等生故。又為簡彼宿願心等所引形色。彼非緣彼心等所生。余異熟因心等生故。何故名錶。此能表示自發業心令他知故。為顯此義故。說頌言。

由外發身語　　表內心所思　譬彼潛淵魚　　鼓波而自表

形色者何。謂長等性。何者長等。謂于彼生長等名想。此攝在何處。謂色處所攝。今應思擇。長等為是極微差別猶如顯色。為是極微差別積聚。為別一物遍色等聚。設爾何失。長等若是極微差別應如顯色。諸色聚中一一細分。長等可取。若是極微差

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：

大正藏第 31 冊 No. 1609 大乘成業論

No. 1609 [No. 1608]

大乘成業論一卷

世親菩薩造

大唐三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

如處處經中世尊說：『三業謂身業、語業、意業。』此中有說，身所造的業，所以名為身業；語本身就是業，所以名為語業。這兩種業都用表業和無表業作為它們的自性。與意相應的業，所以名為意業。此業只是以思作為它的自性。現在在這裡，什麼法名為『表』呢？且身表業以形色為自性，緣於此形色為境界，心等所生。是誰的形色呢？是身的形色。如果是身的形色，為什麼前面說『身所造業故名身業』呢？這是因為總名為『身』，其中一部分被攝入，所以名為『身形色』。依靠身大種而發生，所以名為『身所造』。以總體的『身』來說，對於別體也適用，就像世間說居住在城邑、住在樹林一樣。為什麼又說緣於此形色為境界，心等所生呢？爲了簡別那些唇等的形色，它們不是緣于彼形色而由心等所生。因為緣于言音，心等才生起。又爲了簡別那些宿願心等所引發的形色，它們不是緣于彼形色而由心等所生，而是由其他異熟因的心等所生。為什麼名為『表』呢？因為此能表示自己發起的業心，使他人知曉。爲了顯明這個意義，所以說頌：

『由外發身語，表內心所思，譬彼潛淵魚，鼓波而自表。』

形色是什麼呢？是指長等性質。什麼是長等呢？是指對於彼生長等所產生的名想。此攝在何處呢？是指色處所攝。現在應該思擇，長等是極微的差別，猶如顯色，還是極微差別的積聚，還是別一物遍於色等聚？假設這樣，會有什麼過失呢？長等如果是極微的差別，應該像顯色一樣，在各種色聚中，每一細分都能取到長等。如果是極微的差別

【English Translation】 English version:

Tripitaka Volume 31 No. 1609 Mahayana Karma Accomplishment Treatise

No. 1609 [No. 1608]

Mahayana Karma Accomplishment Treatise, one volume

Composed by Bodhisattva Vasubandhu (世親菩薩)

Translated under imperial decree by the Tang Dynasty Tripitaka Master Xuanzang (玄奘)

As the World Honored One (世尊) said in various sutras: 'The three karmas are bodily karma, verbal karma, and mental karma.' Among these, it is said that actions created by the body are called bodily karma; speech itself is karma, hence called verbal karma. Both of these use manifestation (表) and non-manifestation (無表) as their nature. Karma corresponding to the mind is called mental karma. This karma takes only thought (思) as its nature. Now, within this context, what dharma is called 'manifestation'? Bodily manifestation-karma has form and color (形色) as its nature, taking this as its object (境), produced by mind (心) and so on. Whose form and color? The body's form and color. If it is the body's form and color, why was it previously said, 'Actions created by the body are called bodily karma'? This is because the general term 'body' includes a part of it, hence it is called 'body's form and color.' Because it arises relying on the body's great elements (大種), it is called 'created by the body.' Using the general term 'body' also applies to the specific, just as in the world one says residing in a city (邑), living in a forest (林). Why is it also said that it takes this form and color as its object, produced by mind and so on? It is to distinguish the form and color of the lips (唇) and so on, which are not produced by mind and so on in relation to that. Because it is in relation to speech-sounds (言音) that mind and so on arise. Also, to distinguish the form and color brought about by past vows (宿願心) and so on, which are not produced by mind and so on in relation to that, but are produced by mind and so on due to other ripening causes (異熟因). Why is it called 'manifestation'? Because it can manifest the karma-mind (業心) that one initiates, making it known to others. To clarify this meaning, a verse is spoken:

'Through external bodily and verbal actions, the thoughts of the inner mind are manifested, like a fish (魚) hidden in a deep pool (淵), stirring the waves (波) to reveal itself.'

What is form and color? It refers to qualities like length (長) and so on. What is length and so on? It refers to the name-concept (名想) produced in relation to that length and so on. Where is this included? It is included in the realm of color (色處). Now it should be considered, is length and so on a difference in subtle particles (極微), like visible color (顯色), or is it an accumulation of differences in subtle particles, or is it a separate thing pervading the accumulation of color and so on? If so, what fault would there be? If length and so on were a difference in subtle particles, it should be like visible color, where length and so on could be perceived in each fine division within the various accumulations of color. If it is a difference in subtle particles

別積聚。此與顯色極微積聚。有何差別。即諸顯色積聚差別。應成長等。若別一物遍色等聚。一故遍故。一一分中應全可取。於一切分皆具有故。或應非一。于諸分中各別住故。又壞自宗十處皆是極微積集。又應朋助食米齊宗執實有分遍諸分故。即于和合諸聚色中。見一面多便起長覺。見一面少便起短覺。見四面等便起方覺。見諸面滿便起圓覺。見中凸出便起高覺見中坳凹便起下覺。見面齊平起于正覺。見面參差起不正覺。如旋轉輪觀錦繡時。便生種種異形類覺。不應實有異類形色同在一處如諸顯色。若許爾者。應於一一處起一切形覺。然無是事。是故形色無別有體。即諸顯色于諸方面安布不同起長等覺。如樹蟻等行列無過。若爾云何。于遠闇處不了顯色了形色耶。如何不了樹等形色。而能了彼行列形耶。然離樹等無別行列。或於遠闇諸聚色中。若顯若形俱不能了。雖復能取而不分明。疑是何物此何所見。由是應知但取顯色。由遠闇故見不分明。故表是形理不成立。

有說。身錶行動為性。緣此為境心等所生。何緣復說。緣此為境心等所生。為欲簡彼唇等搖動。彼非緣彼心等所生。以緣言音心等生故云何名行動。謂轉至余方。此攝在何處。謂色處所攝。何緣知此轉至余方。謂差別相不可知故。此理不然。如熟變

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本不要積聚。這與顯色極微（組成可見顏色的最小單位）的積聚有什麼差別呢？就像各種顯色積聚的差別一樣，應該有長、寬等不同。如果說有一個獨立的物體，其顏色等遍佈整個積聚體，那麼因為它是獨立的且遍佈的，所以在每一個部分中都應該可以完全獲取到它的顏色，因為它在所有部分都存在。或者說，它應該不是獨立的，因為它在各個部分中分別存在。此外，這還會破壞你們宗派的觀點，即十處（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意、色、聲、香、味、觸）都是極微的積聚。而且，這還應該像朋助食米派（佛教部派之一）一樣，堅持認為實有部分遍佈于各個部分。也就是說，在和合的各種積聚的顏色中，看到一面大就產生長的感覺，看到一面小就產生短的感覺，看到四面相等就產生方的感覺，看到各個面都完整就產生圓的感覺，看到中間凸出就產生高的感覺，看到中間凹陷就產生低的感覺，看到面齊平就產生正的感覺，看到面參差不齊就產生不正的感覺。就像旋轉輪子觀看錦繡時，就會產生各種不同形狀的感覺。不應該真的有不同種類的形狀顏色同時存在於一個地方，就像各種顯色一樣。如果允許這樣，那麼應該在每一個地方都產生所有形狀的感覺，但實際上並沒有發生這樣的事情。因此，形狀顏色沒有獨立的實體，而是各種顯色在各個方面分佈不同，從而產生長等感覺，就像樹木、螞蟻等行列一樣，沒有其他原因。如果這樣，為什麼在遠處黑暗的地方不能分辨顯色，卻能分辨形狀顏色呢？為什麼不能分辨樹木等的形狀顏色，卻能分辨它們的行列形狀呢？實際上，離開樹木等就沒有獨立的行列。或者說，在遠處黑暗的各種積聚的顏色中，無論是顯色還是形狀都不能分辨清楚。即使能夠獲取到，也不清晰，懷疑是什麼東西，看到了什麼。由此應該知道，只是獲取了顯色，因為遠處黑暗的緣故，看到的不清晰。所以，表是形狀的理論不能成立。

有人說，身表（身體的動作）以行動為特性，心等（心、心所）以它為所緣境而生起。為什麼又說，心等以它為所緣境而生起呢？這是爲了區分嘴唇等的搖動，因為嘴唇等的搖動不是心等以它為所緣境而生起的，而是心等以言語聲音為所緣境而生起的。什麼叫做行動呢？就是轉移到其他方向。這包含在哪裡呢？包含在色處（色蘊）所攝。憑什麼知道這是轉移到其他方向呢？因為差別相無法得知。這個道理是不成立的，就像成熟的變化一樣。

【English Translation】 English version Do not accumulate. What is the difference between this and the accumulation of subtle particles of manifest color (the smallest units that make up visible colors)? It's like the difference in the accumulation of various manifest colors, which should have differences such as length and width. If there is an independent object whose color, etc., pervades the entire accumulation, then because it is independent and pervasive, its color should be completely obtainable in every part, as it exists in all parts. Or, it should not be independent, as it exists separately in each part. Furthermore, this would undermine your sect's view that the ten sense bases (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind, form, sound, smell, taste, touch) are all accumulations of subtle particles. Moreover, this should be like the Pudgalavada (a Buddhist school), which insists that real parts pervade all parts. That is, in the combined colors of various accumulations, seeing a large side gives rise to the feeling of length, seeing a small side gives rise to the feeling of shortness, seeing four equal sides gives rise to the feeling of squareness, seeing all sides complete gives rise to the feeling of roundness, seeing the middle protruding gives rise to the feeling of height, seeing the middle recessed gives rise to the feeling of lowness, seeing the surface flat gives rise to the feeling of straightness, and seeing the surface uneven gives rise to the feeling of crookedness. Just like when watching embroidery on a rotating wheel, various different shapes are perceived. There should not really be different kinds of shapes and colors existing in the same place at the same time, like various manifest colors. If this were allowed, then all shapes should be perceived in every place, but this does not actually happen. Therefore, shape and color do not have independent entities, but rather various manifest colors are distributed differently in various aspects, thus giving rise to feelings of length, etc., just like rows of trees, ants, etc., without any other reason. If so, why can't manifest colors be distinguished in a distant, dark place, but shape colors can be distinguished? Why can't the shape colors of trees, etc., be distinguished, but their row shapes can be distinguished? In reality, there are no independent rows apart from trees, etc. Or, in the various accumulated colors in a distant, dark place, neither manifest colors nor shapes can be clearly distinguished. Even if they can be obtained, they are not clear, and there is doubt about what it is, what is being seen. From this, it should be known that only manifest colors are obtained, and because of the distance and darkness, what is seen is not clear. Therefore, the theory that expression is shape cannot be established.

Some say that bodily expression (bodily action) has action as its characteristic, and the mind, etc. (mind, mental factors), arise with it as their object. Why is it said again that the mind, etc., arise with it as their object? This is to distinguish the movement of the lips, etc., because the movement of the lips, etc., does not arise with the mind, etc., taking it as their object, but rather with the mind, etc., taking speech sounds as their object. What is called action? It is the transfer to another direction. Where is this included? It is included in what is encompassed by the form aggregate (rupa-skandha). How is it known that this is a transfer to another direction? Because the distinguishing characteristics cannot be known. This reasoning is not valid, just like the change of ripening.

物雖才觸火。光雪。酢等諸熟變緣即有差別。而不可知彼差別相。然彼前後非無有異。此亦應然。如長薪草眾分相似。各別生焰雖有差別。而不可知彼差別相。然彼眾分非無有異。此亦應然。若熟變物才觸緣時。諸熟變相不即生者。彼於後時亦應不生。緣無異故。若長薪草眾分相似。非分分中別生焰者。彼焰應無由彼別故。形量照明焰熱差別。是故不應以差別相不可知故。便謂即此轉至余方。應審了知彼差別相。若謂滅因不可得故知即此法轉至余方。此亦非理。如心心所聲燈焰等。有何滅因而唸唸滅。余亦應爾。滅不待因若言心等亦有滅因。謂唯各別自無常相。若爾何故余不許然。余既不然。此云何爾。故知心等滅不待因。心等既然余亦應爾。若余法滅不待因者。薪等未與火等合前。彼色等性應不可取。如合後位后亦應如前位。可取如何。風手未觸未執燈鈴已前。燈焰鈴聲分明可取。非於后位然焰聲滅不待風手。薪等亦然不應為難。又若薪等由火等滅。彼色等性不可取者。才觸無間應不可取。彼才觸時有差別故。又彼外緣無差別故。諸熟變物下中上品。諸熟變相差別生時。由彼為因。後後生起前前滅壞。誰復為因。不應此法由彼故生。即此復由彼法故滅。二相違法非共一因。世極成立故有為法不待滅因。任運自滅如前

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本物體即使剛剛接觸到火、光、醋等導致成熟變化的因緣，其成熟變化的現象也會有差別，但我們無法知道這些差別的具體表現。然而，這些前後狀態並非沒有不同。這裡也應該這樣理解。就像長長的木柴和草，它們的各個部分看起來相似，但各自燃燒產生的火焰卻有差別。雖然我們無法知道這些差別的具體表現，但這些部分並非沒有不同。這裡也應該這樣理解。如果成熟變化的物體在剛剛接觸到因緣時，成熟變化的現象沒有立即產生，那麼在之後的時間裡也應該不會產生，因為因緣沒有改變。如果長長的木柴和草，它們的各個部分看起來相似，但不是每個部分都分別產生火焰，那麼火焰的產生就沒有依據，因為它們是不同的部分。火焰的形狀、大小、照明度和熱度都有差別。因此，不應該因為無法知道這些差別的具體表現，就認為這個物體轉移到了其他地方。應該仔細瞭解這些差別的具體表現。如果認為因為找不到滅亡的原因，所以知道這個法轉移到了其他地方，這也是不合理的。比如心、心所、聲音、燈焰等，有什麼滅亡的原因導致它們唸唸生滅？其他的也應該如此。滅亡不需要原因。如果說心等也有滅亡的原因，那就是各自的無常相。如果是這樣，為什麼其他的就不允許這樣呢？既然其他的不是這樣，那麼這個怎麼會是這樣呢？所以知道心等的滅亡不需要原因。心等既然如此，其他的也應該如此。如果其他的法滅亡不需要原因，那麼木柴等在沒有與火等結合之前，它們的顏色等性質應該無法被感知。就像結合后的狀態一樣，之後的狀態也應該像之前的狀態一樣可以被感知。為什麼呢？在風和手沒有接觸或拿著燈鈴之前，燈焰明明可以被感知。並非在之後的狀態，火焰和聲音的熄滅不需要風和手。木柴等也是如此，不應該以此為難。再者，如果木柴等因為火等而熄滅，它們的顏色等性質無法被感知，那麼剛剛接觸的時候就應該無法被感知。因為它們剛剛接觸的時候有差別。而且，它們的外在因緣沒有差別。成熟變化的物體，下品、中品、上品，各種成熟變化的現象產生差別的時候，因為這些差別作為原因，後後的現象生起，前前的現象滅壞，那麼誰又是原因呢？不應該是這個法因為那個法而生起，然後又因為那個法而滅亡。兩種狀態相互矛盾，不能共用一個原因。世間的真理就是這樣成立的，所以有為法不需要滅亡的原因，而是自然而然地滅亡，就像之前所說的那樣。

【English Translation】 English version Although objects may just come into contact with conditions for ripening changes such as fire, light, or vinegar, there will be differences in the appearances of those ripening changes, but we cannot know the specific manifestations of those differences. However, these before and after states are not without differences. This should also be understood in this way. Just like long firewood and grass, their various parts look similar, but the flames produced by each burning are different. Although we cannot know the specific manifestations of these differences, these parts are not without differences. This should also be understood in this way. If the appearances of ripening changes do not immediately arise when objects undergoing ripening changes just come into contact with conditions, then they should not arise at a later time either, because the conditions have not changed. If long firewood and grass, their various parts look similar, but not each part separately produces flames, then the production of flames has no basis, because they are different parts. The shape, size, illumination, and heat of the flames are different. Therefore, one should not think that this object has moved to another place simply because one cannot know the specific manifestations of these differences. One should carefully understand the specific manifestations of these differences. If one thinks that because the cause of extinction cannot be found, one knows that this dharma has moved to another place, this is also unreasonable. For example, what cause of extinction leads to the momentary arising and ceasing of mind (citta), mental factors (cittas), sound, lamp flames, etc.? Others should also be like this. Extinction does not need a cause. If one says that mind etc. also have a cause of extinction, that is their respective impermanent nature (anitya). If that is the case, why are others not allowed to be like that? Since others are not like that, then how can this be like that? Therefore, one knows that the extinction of mind etc. does not need a cause. Since mind etc. are like this, others should also be like this. If the extinction of other dharmas does not need a cause, then the color etc. properties of firewood etc. should not be perceptible before they are combined with fire etc. Just like the state after combination, the later state should also be perceptible like the previous state. Why? Before the wind and hand touch or hold the lamp bell, the lamp flame is clearly perceptible. It is not in the later state that the extinguishing of the flame and sound does not need wind and hand. Firewood etc. are also like this, one should not make it difficult. Furthermore, if the color etc. properties of firewood etc. cannot be perceived because they are extinguished by fire etc., then they should not be perceptible when they just come into contact. Because they have differences when they just come into contact. Moreover, their external conditions have no difference. When the appearances of ripening changes of ripening-changed objects, inferior, medium, and superior, arise with differences, because these differences serve as causes, the later phenomena arise and the earlier phenomena are destroyed, then who is the cause? It should not be that this dharma arises because of that dharma, and then is destroyed because of that dharma. The two states contradict each other and cannot share one cause. The truth of the world is established in this way, so conditioned dharmas (samskrta) do not need a cause of extinction, but naturally extinguish themselves, just as mentioned before.

可取。不可取者。應知相續隨轉滅壞差別之相。有微增故。又若滅法亦有因者。是則應無無因滅法。心心所等如待因生。滅亦應爾。非離心等別有無常世共成立。又因異故滅應差別。如火光雪酢等異故熟變差別。又已滅法應更可滅許有因故。猶如色等。是故滅法決定無因。滅無因故才生即滅。故知無有轉至余方。若謂生因不可得故。知即此法轉至余方。此亦非理有生因故。謂前與后而作生因。如前念心與后念心。前念熟變與后熟變。乳與其酪。葡萄汁與酒。酒復與酢等故。無少法轉至余方。轉相既無何有行動。又若有住則無行動。既無行動彼應常住。法若無住亦無行動。才生即滅無動義故。若爾現見行動者何。余方所見非即本物何緣知彼非本物耶。由彼彼方新新生故。如草火焰及如影行。非此方影余方可見形質不動。日等光明遠近迴轉便見彼影或長或短或移轉故。又障光明少分生故。有反詰言。何緣徴難。至余方義且如何知。余方所見非即本物。此亦應引前理為證。謂若有住則無動等。又外火等緣無差別。而於后時差別可取。由此證知唸唸各別。又若以證異因無故。謂余所見還是本物。既無有因證即本物。何緣不謂非本物耶。由此二義應俱不定。故至余方義不成立。

日出論者作如是言。諸行實無至余方義。有

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：可以接受的觀點和不可接受的觀點，應該瞭解相續、隨轉、滅壞的差別之相，因為有細微的增減變化。此外，如果滅法也有原因，那麼就應該不存在無因的滅法。心和心所等法依賴於因緣而生，滅也應該如此。不存在離開心等之外，另外有一個被世俗共同認可的無常。而且，因為原因不同，滅也應該有差別，就像火光、雪、醋等不同，導致成熟和變化也不同。此外，已經滅掉的法應該可以再次被滅，因為它被認為是存在原因的，就像色法等。因此，滅法一定是無因的。因為滅是無因的，所以才產生就立即滅亡。因此，可以知道沒有東西會轉移到其他地方。如果認為因為找不到生因，所以知道就是這個法轉移到了其他地方，這也是不合理的，因為存在生因。所謂生因，就是指前和后之間可以作為生因，比如前念心和后念心，前唸的成熟變化和后唸的成熟變化，乳和酪，葡萄汁和酒，酒和醋等等。所以，沒有絲毫的法會轉移到其他地方。既然沒有轉移的現象，又怎麼會有行動呢？而且，如果有住留，就沒有行動。既然沒有行動，它就應該是常住的。法如果沒有住留，也沒有行動，因為才產生就立即滅亡，沒有行動的意義。如果這樣，現在看到的行動又是什麼呢？在其他地方看到的，不是原來的東西。憑什麼知道它不是原來的東西呢？因為在那個地方，有新的東西產生。就像草、火焰，以及像影子的移動。不是說這邊的影子，在其他地方也能看到，形體本質並沒有動。太陽等的光明遠近迴轉，就看到那個影子或長或短，或移動。又因為阻礙光明的少部分產生。有人反駁說：憑什麼要質疑轉移到其他地方的說法？又憑什麼知道在其他地方看到的不是原來的東西？這也應該引用前面的道理來證明，就是如果有住留就沒有行動等等。而且，外在的火等因緣沒有差別，但是在之後的時間，差別是可以觀察到的。由此可以證明唸唸各別。而且，如果用證明異因不存在的理由，認為在其他地方看到的還是原來的東西，既然沒有原因可以證明是原來的東西，憑什麼不認為它不是原來的東西呢？由此兩種說法都應該是不確定的。所以，轉移到其他地方的說法是不成立的。日出論者這樣說：諸行實際上沒有轉移到其他地方的意義，有

【English Translation】 English version: Acceptable and unacceptable views: one should understand the characteristics of continuity (samtati), transformation (anuvrtti), cessation (nirodha), and destruction (bhanga), because of subtle increases and decreases. Furthermore, if cessation also has a cause, then there should be no causeless cessation. Mental states (citta) and mental factors (caittas), like things that arise dependent on causes, should also cease in the same way. There is no impermanence established by common consent apart from mind etc. Moreover, cessation should differ because of different causes, just as ripening and change differ because of differences in firelight, snow, vinegar, etc. Furthermore, a phenomenon that has already ceased should be able to cease again, since it is admitted to have a cause, like form etc. Therefore, cessation definitely has no cause. Because cessation is causeless, it ceases immediately upon arising. Therefore, it is known that nothing moves to another place. If it is argued that because the cause of arising cannot be found, it is known that this very phenomenon moves to another place, this is also unreasonable, because there is a cause of arising. The so-called cause of arising refers to the relationship between what is before and what is after, which can serve as a cause of arising, such as the preceding moment of mind and the subsequent moment of mind, the preceding moment of ripening and change and the subsequent ripening and change, milk and curds, grape juice and wine, wine and vinegar, and so on. Therefore, no phenomenon whatsoever moves to another place. Since there is no phenomenon of moving, how can there be action? Moreover, if there is abiding, there is no action. Since there is no action, it should be permanent. If a phenomenon has no abiding, it also has no action, because it ceases immediately upon arising, and there is no meaning of action. If so, what is the action that is seen now? What is seen in another place is not the original thing. How is it known that it is not the original thing? Because in that place, new things arise. Like grass, flames, and the movement of shadows. It is not that the shadow on this side can be seen on the other side; the essence of the form does not move. The light of the sun, etc., revolves from far and near, and then the shadow is seen to be either long or short, or moving. Also, because a small part of the light is obstructed and arises. Someone retorts: Why question the meaning of moving to another place? And how is it known that what is seen in another place is not the original thing? This should also cite the previous reasoning as proof, that is, if there is abiding, there is no action, etc. Moreover, the external causes and conditions such as fire are no different, but differences can be observed at a later time. From this, it can be proven that each moment is separate. Moreover, if one uses the reason that there is no different cause to prove that what is seen in another place is still the original thing, since there is no cause to prove that it is the original thing, why not consider it not the original thing? Therefore, both of these statements should be uncertain. Therefore, the statement of moving to another place is not established. The 'Rising Sun' theorists say: In reality, phenomena do not have the meaning of moving to another place, there is

為法性唸唸滅故。然別有法心差別為因。依手足等起此法。能作手足等物。異方生因是名行動。亦名身表。此攝在何處。謂色處所攝。若爾何緣不許眼見如諸顯色。既非所見不表示他。如何名錶。復云何知此法實有。云何此法能令自身轉趣余方別異而起。若言由心差別。所生風界即應如是。風界其性是動。足能為彼異方生因。何乃離風執有動法。又草葉等離外風界無別動法。云何移轉。然諸風界搖觸等生其效能動。即應許彼能令手等轉余方生何勞別執。若體若用俱不極成能動法生。

若不爾者即心差別。所生風界能為手等異方生因應是身表。如是風界無所表示。云何名錶。又許觸處是善不善便非釋子。

若不爾者即心差別。能令自身余方生起。即身生起應是身表。是則身表應假非實。自身多法合為體故。又無表示云何名錶。香等不能表示他故。又許香等是善不善便非釋子。若不爾者即心差別。所生顯色應是身表。顯色非心差別所起。自種子風差別生故。又許顯色是善不善便非釋子。若此顯色體非身表。此余方生應是身表。天愛任汝於此表業盡力所能勤加轉計。然此非用功力能成。何乃于中徒生勞倦。誰能成立生別有體。此所執生非如色等。是所現見非如眼等。是能現見何緣知有。又不可見云何名錶。前說

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：因為法性唸唸生滅的緣故，另外有一種法，以心的差別作為原因，依靠手足等產生這種法。這種法能夠使手足等移動。在不同的方向產生原因，這叫做行動，也叫做身表（kaya-vijnapti，身體的表達）。這包含在哪裡呢？包含在色處所攝（rupa-ayatana，色界）。如果這樣，為什麼不允許眼睛看到它，像看到各種顯色一樣呢？既然不是所見之物，就不能向他人表達什麼，怎麼能叫做『表』呢？又怎麼知道這種法是真實存在的呢？這種法如何能使自身轉移到其他方向，產生不同的變化呢？如果說是由於心的差別所產生的風界（vayu-dhatu，風元素），就應該是這樣。風界的性質是運動的，足能夠成為它在不同方向產生的原因。為什麼離開風界，另外執著于有『動』這種法呢？而且草葉等離開外面的風界，沒有其他的『動』法，怎麼能移動呢？然而各種風界，搖動、接觸等產生，它的效能是運動的，就應該允許它能使手等轉移到其他方向，產生變化，何必另外執著于『動』這種法呢？無論是體性還是作用，都不能充分證明『動』這種法的存在。

如果不是這樣，那麼由心的差別所產生的風界，能夠成為手等在不同方向產生的原因，就應該是身表。像這樣，風界沒有什麼可以表達的，怎麼能叫做『表』呢？又允許觸處（sprsa-ayatana，觸覺）是善或不善的，那就不是釋迦牟尼佛的弟子了。

如果不是這樣，那麼由心的差別，能夠使自身在其他方向產生，自身生起就應該是身表。這樣的話，身表應該是假有的，而不是真實的，因為自身是多種法合在一起形成的。而且沒有什麼可以表達的，怎麼能叫做『表』呢？香等不能表達什麼，又允許香等是善或不善的，那就不是釋迦牟尼佛的弟子了。如果不是這樣，那麼由心的差別所產生的顯色（varna，顏色），就應該是身表。顯色不是由心的差別所產生的，而是由自身的種子和風的差別所產生的。又允許顯色是善或不善的，那就不是釋迦牟尼佛的弟子了。如果這種顯色的體性不是身表，那麼這種在其他方向的產生就應該是身表。天愛（devanampriya，對僧侶的尊稱），任憑你對這種『表』的業用，盡你所能，努力地進行推論。然而這不是用功力能夠完成的，為什麼要在其中白白地浪費精力呢？誰能夠成立『生』是另外一種實體呢？這種你所執著的『生』，不像色等，是能夠被直接看到的；也不像眼等，是能夠進行觀察的。它既不能被觀察到，又怎麼知道它的存在呢？而且不可見，怎麼能叫做『表』呢？前面已經說過了。

【English Translation】 English version: Because the nature of phenomena (dharma-lakshana) is constantly arising and ceasing, there is another phenomenon (dharma) that arises based on the differences in mind, relying on hands, feet, etc. This phenomenon can cause hands, feet, etc., to move. It is the cause of arising in different directions, and this is called action, also known as kaya-vijnapti (bodily expression). Where is this included? It is included in the rupa-ayatana (sphere of form). If so, why is it not allowed to be seen by the eyes, like various visible forms? Since it is not something seen, it cannot express anything to others, so how can it be called an 'expression'? And how do we know that this phenomenon is truly existent? How can this phenomenon cause itself to move to other directions and arise differently? If it is said that it is due to the vayu-dhatu (wind element) produced by the differences in mind, then it should be so. The nature of the wind element is movement, and the feet can be the cause of its arising in different directions. Why, apart from the wind element, cling to the existence of a phenomenon called 'movement'? Moreover, grass, leaves, etc., apart from the external wind element, have no other phenomenon of 'movement,' so how can they move? However, various wind elements, shaking, touching, etc., arise, and their nature is movement, so it should be allowed that they can cause hands, etc., to move to other directions and arise. Why bother clinging to a separate phenomenon of 'movement'? Neither its essence nor its function can sufficiently prove the existence of a phenomenon of 'movement'.

If not, then the vayu-dhatu (wind element) produced by the differences in mind, which can be the cause of hands, etc., arising in different directions, should be the kaya-vijnapti (bodily expression). In this way, the wind element has nothing to express, so how can it be called an 'expression'? Also, if you allow that sprsa-ayatana (touch) is good or bad, then you are not a disciple of Shakyamuni Buddha.

If not, then the arising of oneself in other directions, caused by the differences in mind, should be the kaya-vijnapti (bodily expression). In that case, kaya-vijnapti (bodily expression) should be provisional and not real, because oneself is a combination of many phenomena. Moreover, it has nothing to express, so how can it be called an 'expression'? Scents, etc., cannot express anything, and if you allow that scents, etc., are good or bad, then you are not a disciple of Shakyamuni Buddha. If not, then the varna (visible form) produced by the differences in mind should be the kaya-vijnapti (bodily expression). Visible form is not produced by the differences in mind, but by its own seed and the differences in wind. Also, if you allow that visible form is good or bad, then you are not a disciple of Shakyamuni Buddha. If the essence of this visible form is not kaya-vijnapti (bodily expression), then this arising in other directions should be kaya-vijnapti (bodily expression). Devanampriya (beloved of the gods, a respectful term for monks), let you exert all your effort and diligently speculate on this function of 'expression.' However, this cannot be accomplished by effort, so why waste your energy in vain? Who can establish that 'arising' is another entity? This 'arising' that you cling to is not like visible forms, which can be directly seen; nor is it like the eyes, which can observe. It cannot be observed, so how do you know it exists? And since it is invisible, how can it be called an 'expression'? It has been said before.

不能表示他故。又若顯色是善不善。可說此生為身表業。然諸顯色非善不善。前已說故。生亦應然。是故定無身實表業。若爾身業應唯無表。此無表名為目何法。謂法處攝律儀色等。云何欲界有善無表離表而發。若欲界中有此無表復有何過。應隨心轉。如在色界是則余心及無心位。應無律儀不律儀等。若謂受時要期發語。所引發故無斯過者。說戒經時默無所說亦無要期。如何獲得虛誑語罪。又應無有無記身業。以無表業唯二種故。又亦應無一剎那頃善惡身業。以諸無表定相續故。謂若輕心不發無表。重心所發決定相續。雖彼隨情計度實有身語業色。而不應成善不善性。所以者何。彼說色業于命終位必皆舍故。如何由此能得當來愛非愛果。有作是言此何非理。謂過去業其體實有。能得當來所感果故。此于癰上更復生癰。謂執過去業體實有。先有後無名為過去。如何可執其體實有。若爾世尊何故自說。

業雖經百劫　　而終無失壞　遇眾緣合時　　要當酬彼果

無失壞言。為顯何義。顯所作業非無果義由後半頌證此義成。誰不信受善不善業。雖經久遠而能得果。但應思擇。如何得果。為由相續轉變差別。如稻種等而得果耶。為由自相經久遠時安住不壞而得果耶。若由相續轉變差別而得果者。義且可然。若由自

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：不能表示其他原因。又如果顯色是善或不善，可以說此生為身表業。然而，各種顯色並非善或不善，之前已經說過了。生也應該如此。因此，可以確定沒有真實的身體表業。如果這樣，身體的業應該只有無表業。這個無表業指的是什麼法呢？指的是法處所攝的律儀色等。為什麼欲界會有善的無表業，而離開表業而產生呢？如果欲界中有這種無表業，又有什麼過失呢？應該隨心而轉。如果在是則余心及無心位，應該沒有律儀、不律儀等。如果說受戒時，通過要期發語所引發，所以沒有這種過失，那麼在說戒經時，沉默沒有說話，也沒有要期，如何獲得虛誑語罪呢？又應該沒有無記的身業，因為無表業只有兩種。又也應該沒有一剎那間的善惡身業，因為各種無表業一定是相續的。如果輕心不發無表業，重心所發的一定相續。雖然他們隨自己的想法認為確實有身語業色，但不應該成為善或不善的性質。為什麼呢？因為他們說色業在命終時一定會全部捨棄。如何由此能夠得到將來的可愛或不可愛果報呢？有人這樣說，這有什麼不合理呢？過去所造的業，它的本體是真實存在的，能夠得到將來的果報。這就像在癰上又生了癰。執著過去業的本體真實存在，先有後無的叫做過去，怎麼能執著它的本體真實存在呢？如果這樣，世尊為什麼自己說：『業雖經百劫，而終無失壞，遇眾緣合時，要當酬彼果。』『無失壞』這句話，是爲了顯示什麼意義呢？是爲了顯示所造的業不會沒有果報的意義，由後半句詩可以證明這個意義成立。誰不相信善不善的業，即使經過很久遠的時間，也能夠得到果報呢？但應該思考，如何得到果報呢？是通過相續轉變差別，像稻種等而得到果報呢？還是通過自相經過久遠的時間安住不壞而得到果報呢？如果是通過相續轉變差別而得到果報，道理還說得過去。如果是通過自相經

【English Translation】 English version: It cannot indicate other causes. Furthermore, if manifest form (顯色) is good or bad, it can be said that this birth is bodily expression karma (身表業). However, various manifest forms are neither good nor bad, as has been said before. Birth should also be the same. Therefore, it is certain that there is no real bodily expression karma. If so, bodily karma should only be non-manifest karma (無表業). What dharma (法) does this non-manifest karma refer to? It refers to the restraining color (律儀色) etc. included in the realm of dharmas (法處). Why does the desire realm (欲界) have good non-manifest karma, arising apart from expression karma? If there is this non-manifest karma in the desire realm, what fault is there? It should follow the mind's changes. As in 'is then other minds' and 'mindless states', there should be no restraints, non-restraints, etc. If it is said that during the time of receiving precepts, it is initiated by the vow and utterance, so there is no such fault, then during the recitation of the precept sutra (說戒經), there is silence without speaking, and no vow, how is the sin of false speech (虛誑語罪) obtained? Furthermore, there should be no neutral bodily karma (無記身業), because there are only two kinds of non-manifest karma. Also, there should be no good or bad bodily karma in one instant, because all non-manifest karmas are definitely continuous. If a light mind does not initiate non-manifest karma, the non-manifest karma initiated by a heavy mind is definitely continuous. Although they, according to their own ideas, believe that there are indeed bodily and verbal karma colors (身語業色), they should not become good or bad in nature. Why? Because they say that color karma must all be abandoned at the time of death. How can one obtain the future beloved or unloved result from this? Some say, what is unreasonable about this? The past karma, its substance is truly existent, and can obtain the future result. This is like growing another sore on a sore. Holding that the substance of past karma is truly existent, having it first and then not having it is called the past, how can one hold that its substance is truly existent? If so, why did the World Honored One (世尊) himself say: 『Karma, though passing through hundreds of kalpas (劫), will ultimately not be lost. When the conditions come together, it will surely repay its fruit.』 What meaning does the phrase 『will not be lost』 reveal? It reveals the meaning that the karma created will not be without result, and the second half of the verse proves this meaning. Who does not believe that good and bad karma, even after a long time, can obtain results? But one should consider how to obtain results. Is it through the differences in the transformation of continuity, like rice seeds, etc., that one obtains results? Or is it through the self-nature abiding without decay for a long time that one obtains results? If it is through the differences in the transformation of continuity that one obtains results, the reasoning is still acceptable. If it is through the self-nature

相經久遠時安住不壞而得果者。應言此業經久遠時體不謝滅而能得果。若謂此業非自相。無名為謝滅。然由此業無復作用名謝滅者。如何此業無復作用。由更不能引當果故。何緣不能更引當果。此于彼果已曾引故。不可於果引而復引。如法已生不重生故。何緣不引余等流果。以等流果無分限故。豈不此果亦現在時。已曾引故不須重引。業體不滅常應現在。何不常引所得果耶。豈不前言不可於果引而復引。如法已生不重生故。如何復難前雖有言而未釋難。業體恒有應如中際。常名現在常能引果。應如初際恒復可生。若謂過去業體雖有。而無作用故非現在。非現在故不能引果。此亦不然。既恒有體應如現在恒有作用。又汝所宗過去諸法有與果用何非現在。若謂現在。唯依諸法取果用說。理亦不然。用義同故。應俱現在過去諸法。無取果用名過去者。有與果用應名現在。此用盡時應名謝滅。是則諸法滅而覆滅。如是亦應生而復生。故彼宗義理不成立。又法如何名能引果。謂安立彼令當生故。諸漏盡者。最後剎那應不引果后不生故。是則此念應非現在。不應更滅入於過去。初現在時已無作用。如何后時說名謝滅。若雖無用而更滅者。是則過去復應須滅。若滅已覆滅。應生已更生。便有自違前所說過。若謂此念雖有能生後果作用

。而緣闕故後果不生。此亦非理。果必不生。如何知有能生作用。應言此念違順二緣有非有故。雖從因生而無作用能生後果。是故彼宗如是種類能引果義理必不成。由此但應于果種子能長養故。名能引果。又彼宗說過去未來體皆實有未來。何故非如現在能引果耶。若一切時一切物有何時何物體非有故。而經言遇眾緣合時當酬彼果。又彼應說誰於何位於誰有能言安立彼令當生故。名能引果。以一切時一切有故。是故所言謂過去業其體實有能得當來。所感果者。理定不成。

若爾應許由善不善身語二業。蘊相續中引別法起。其體實有心不相應行蘊所攝。有說此法名為增長。有說此法名不失壞。由此法故能得當來愛非愛果。意業亦應許有此法。若不爾者余心起時此便斷滅。心相續中若不引起如是別法。云何能得當來世果。是故定應許有此法。若於先時誦習文義。后經久遠復生憶念。又于先時于諸境界數見聞等。后經久遠於彼境中還生憶念。於何剎那引起何法。由此後時還生憶念。

又先趣入滅定等心引起何法。由此後時還從定起生出定心。又紫礦汁染拘櫞花。彼二俱滅引起何法。后結果時瓤生赤色。故離彼計身語二業所引別法。但應由思差別作用熏心相續令起功能。由此功能轉變差別當來世果差別而生。如紫礦

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果缺少了（產生結果的）緣，那麼結果就不會產生，這也是不合道理的。如果結果一定不會產生，又怎麼知道有產生作用的能力呢？應該說，這個念頭違背了順緣和逆緣的有和無的條件。即使是從因產生的，也沒有產生後果的作用。因此，他們的宗派所說的這種能夠引出結果的道理一定不能成立。因此，只能說對於果實的種子，因為能夠長養，所以才叫做能夠引出結果。而且，他們的宗派說過去和未來的體都是真實存在的，那麼未來為什麼不能像現在一樣引出結果呢？如果一切時、一切物都有，那麼什麼時候、什麼物體不是有的呢？而經書上說，遇到各種因緣聚合的時候，就會酬報那個結果。而且，他們應該說，誰在什麼位置，對於誰有能力安立它，使它應當產生，所以叫做能夠引出結果。因為一切時都是有的。因此，所說的過去業，它的體是真實存在的，能夠得到將來的感果，這個道理一定不能成立。

如果這樣，就應該允許由善和不善的身語二業，在蘊（skandha）的相續中引出別的法生起，它的體是真實存在的，屬於心不相應行蘊所攝。有人說這個法叫做增長，有人說這個法叫做不失壞。因為這個法，能夠得到將來的可愛和不可愛果。意業也應該允許有這個法。如果不這樣，其餘的心生起的時候，這個法就會斷滅。心相續中如果不引起像這樣的別法，怎麼能夠得到將來的世果呢？所以一定要允許有這個法。如果在先前誦習文義，後來經過很久又產生憶念。又在先前對於各種境界多次見聞等等，後來經過很久，對於那個境界還產生憶念。在哪個剎那引起了什麼法，因此後來還產生憶念。

又先前進入滅盡定（nirodha-samāpatti）等的心，引起了什麼法，因此後來還從定中起來，產生出定心。又用紫礦汁染色拘櫞花，那兩個都滅了，引起了什麼法，後來結果的時候，瓤產生紅色。所以離開他們的計度，身語二業所引的別法，只應該由思的差別作用熏習心相續，使它產生功能。由此功能轉變差別，將來的世果差別而生。就像紫礦一樣。

【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, if the conditions (for the result to arise) are lacking, then the result will not arise, which is also unreasonable. If the result is certain not to arise, how can one know that there is a capacity to produce an effect? It should be said that this thought violates the presence and absence of favorable and unfavorable conditions. Even if it arises from a cause, it does not have the effect of producing a consequence. Therefore, the principle of their school, which states that this can lead to a result, must not be established. Therefore, it should only be said that for the seed of the fruit, because it can be nurtured, it is called being able to lead to a result. Moreover, their school says that the substance of the past and future are both truly existent. Why can't the future lead to a result like the present? If everything at all times and everything exists, then when and what thing is not existent? However, the scriptures say that when various conditions come together, the result will be repaid. Moreover, they should say who is in what position, and for whom has the ability to establish it, so that it should arise, so it is called being able to lead to a result, because everything exists at all times. Therefore, the statement that past karma, its substance is truly existent, and can obtain the future result, this principle cannot be established.

If so, it should be allowed that from good and bad actions of body and speech, other dharmas arise in the continuum of the skandhas (aggregates), its substance is truly existent, and belongs to the category of citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra-skandha (aggregate of formations not associated with mind). Some say this dharma is called 'growth', and some say this dharma is called 'non-decay'. Because of this dharma, one can obtain future desirable and undesirable results. Mental karma should also be allowed to have this dharma. If not, when other minds arise, this dharma will be cut off. If such a different dharma is not aroused in the mind-continuum, how can one obtain the future worldly result? Therefore, it must be allowed that there is this dharma. If one recites and studies the meaning of texts at an earlier time, and after a long time, one remembers them again. Also, if one has seen, heard, etc. various objects many times at an earlier time, and after a long time, one remembers those objects again. In which kṣaṇa (moment) does one arouse what dharma, so that one remembers it again later?

Also, what dharma does the mind that previously entered into nirodha-samāpatti (cessation attainment) etc. arouse, so that one arises from the samadhi (concentration) later and produces a mind that emerges from the samadhi? Also, when dyeing citron flowers with purple mineral juice, what dharma is aroused when both of them are gone, so that the pulp becomes red when the fruit is produced later? Therefore, apart from their calculations, the different dharmas led by the actions of body and speech should only be the different functions of thought that perfume the mind-continuum, causing it to produce a function. Because of this function, the differences transform, and the differences in future worldly results arise. Just like purple mineral.

汁染拘櫞花相續轉變至結果時其瓤色赤。內法熏習應知亦爾。又何不許身語二業熏心相續。以身語業由心引成善不善故。不應由心成善不善。于異相續能與當來愛非愛果。非余造業餘受果故。若所作業體雖謝滅。由所熏心相續功能轉變差別。能得當來愛等果者。處無心定及無想天心相續斷。如何先業能得當來愛非愛果。有作是說。於此生中先所熏心必還相續故。得當來愛非愛果。既已間斷何因能續。入定心作等無間緣故能令續。彼久謝滅云何能作等無間緣。如破過去業能得果。此亦同彼應如理破。故出定心不應續起。

有作是說。依附色根種子力故後心還起。以能生心心所種子依二相續。謂心相續色根相續。隨其所應豈不經說。意法為緣生於意識。云何離意而意識生。應知意種或時名意以于因中立果名故。如於所觸立飢渴名。如何一一心心所法。從二種子相續而生。不見芽等從種生法。有如是事。可藉多緣生於一果。無從二種有一果生。若爾還應不免前過。謂無心定及無想天心相續斷。如何先業能得當來愛非愛果。是彼宗過何謂彼宗。謂執此位全無心者。若說此位是有心者。即無斯過。如尊者世友所造問論中言。若執滅定全無有心。可有此過。我說滅定猶有細心故無此失。彼復引經證成此義。如契經言。處滅定

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：汁染拘櫞花（Citron flower，枸櫞花）相續轉變，直至結果時，它的果肉會變成紅色。應該知道，內心的熏習也是如此。又為何不允許身語二業熏習心識相續呢？因為身語之業是由心引導而成的善或不善。不應由心造作善或不善，而在不同的相續中，能給予未來可愛或不可愛的果報。不是因為其他人造業，而由其他人承受果報。如果所造之業的體性雖然已經謝滅，但由於所熏習的心識相續的功能轉變差別，能夠得到未來可愛等果報，那麼在無心定（狀態）以及無想天（狀態）中，心識相續斷滅，之前的業如何能夠得到未來可愛或不可愛的果報呢？有人這樣說：在此生中，先前所熏習的心識必定還會相續，所以能夠得到未來可愛或不可愛的果報。既然已經間斷，憑什麼原因能夠繼續呢？入定之心作為等無間緣（immediately preceding condition），所以能夠令其繼續。但它已經謝滅很久了，如何能夠作為等無間緣呢？如同破斥過去之業能夠得到果報一樣，這也應該像那樣如理破斥。所以，出定之心不應該繼續生起。有人這樣說：依靠附著於色根（sense faculties）的種子力量，後來的心識還會生起。因為能夠生起心識和心所（mental factors）的種子，依賴於兩種相續，即心識相續和色根相續。隨其所應，難道經典中沒有說，『意（mind）和法（mental objects）為緣，生起意識（consciousness）』嗎？如果離開意，意識如何生起呢？應該知道，意種有時也稱為意，這是因為在因中立果名。如同對於所觸立飢渴之名。如何一一心和心所法，從兩種子相續而生呢？不見芽等從種子生起的法，有這樣的事情。可以憑藉多種因緣生起一個果，沒有從兩種子生起一個果的道理。如果這樣，還是不能免除之前的過失，即在無心定以及無想天中，心識相續斷滅，之前的業如何能夠得到未來可愛或不可愛的果報呢？這是他們的宗派的過失。什麼是他們的宗派呢？就是執著於此位完全沒有心識的人。如果說此位是有心識的，就沒有這個過失。如同尊者世友（Vasumitra）所造的問論中所說：『如果執著于滅盡定（cessation attainment）完全沒有心識，可能有這個過失。我說滅盡定中還有細微的心識，所以沒有這個過失。』他們又引用經典來證明這個意義。如契經所說：『處於滅盡定』

【English Translation】 English version: When the Citron flower (Ju ran ju yuan hua) continuously transforms until it bears fruit, its pulp turns red. It should be understood that the internal cultivation of the mind is also like this. Furthermore, why is it not permitted that the actions of body and speech continuously influence the mind? Because the actions of body and speech are guided by the mind to become good or bad. It should not be that the mind creates good or bad, and in different continuums, it can give rise to future desirable or undesirable consequences. It is not that someone else creates karma and someone else receives the consequences. If the nature of the actions performed has already ceased, but due to the transformation and differentiation of the function of the mind continuum that has been influenced, it is possible to obtain future desirable consequences, then in the state of non-mind absorption (Wu xin ding) and the Heaven of Non-Perception (Wu xiang tian), where the mind continuum is severed, how can previous karma lead to future desirable or undesirable consequences? Some say that the mind that was previously influenced in this life will certainly continue, so it is possible to obtain future desirable or undesirable consequences. Since it has already been interrupted, what cause can continue it? The mind entering absorption acts as an immediately preceding condition (Skt. samanantarapratyaya), so it can cause it to continue. But it has ceased for a long time, how can it act as an immediately preceding condition? Just as refuting that past karma can lead to consequences, this should also be refuted reasonably like that. Therefore, the mind emerging from absorption should not continue to arise. Some say that later minds arise again relying on the power of the seeds attached to the sense faculties (Se gen). Because the seeds that can give rise to mind and mental factors (Xin suo) rely on two continuums, namely the mind continuum and the sense faculty continuum. As appropriate, haven't the sutras said, 'Mind (Yi) and mental objects (Fa) are the conditions for the arising of consciousness (Yi shi)'? How can consciousness arise apart from mind? It should be known that the mind seed is sometimes also called mind, because the name of the result is established in the cause. Just as the name of hunger and thirst is established for what is touched. How can each and every mind and mental factor arise from two seed continuums? It is not seen that things like sprouts arising from seeds have such a thing. It is possible to rely on multiple conditions to give rise to one result, but there is no reason for one result to arise from two seeds. If so, it still cannot avoid the previous fault, that is, in the state of non-mind absorption and the Heaven of Non-Perception, where the mind continuum is severed, how can previous karma lead to future desirable or undesirable consequences? This is the fault of their school. What is their school? It is those who cling to the view that there is no mind at all in this state. If it is said that there is mind in this state, then there is no such fault. As Venerable Vasumitra (Zun zhe Shi you) said in his Inquiry Treatise: 'If one clings to the view that there is no mind at all in the cessation attainment (Mie jin ding), there may be this fault. I say that there is still subtle mind in the cessation attainment, so there is no such fault.' They also cite the sutras to prove this meaning. As the sutra says: 'Being in cessation attainment'

者身行皆滅。廣說乃至根無變壞識不離身。今此位中許有何識。

有說。此有第六意識。豈不經說。意法為緣生於意識。三和合觸與觸俱起有受想思。云何此位得有意識而無三和。或有三和而無有觸。或復有觸而無受想。由是說名滅受想定。有作是釋。如何世尊說。受緣愛而一切受非皆愛緣。觸亦應爾。非一切觸皆受等緣。世尊余經自簡此義。謂無明觸所生諸受為緣生愛曾無有處。簡觸生受。無簡別故非為善釋。有別釋言。三和觸者。三事有力合故。觸生於此位中。三事無力可能生觸及生受想。由入定心所厭壞故。正在定位尚無有觸。況有受想。故此位中唯余意識無諸心所。若爾此位意識。是何為善為染為無記性。設爾何失。若善性者如何善性。非無貪等善根相應。設無貪等善根相應。如何無觸。若謂由善等無間緣所引發故此識善者。理不應然。善心無間生三心故。又善根力所引善心。無因能遮無貪等故。又無善根應不成善。然此滅定如滅是善。若染性者如何染性。不與貪等煩惱相應。設與貪等煩惱相應。如何無觸。如佛于彼十問經中自作是說。所有受蘊想蘊行蘊皆觸為緣。又無想定尚不許染。況滅盡定。若是無覆無記性者。為異熟生。為威儀路。為工巧處。為能變化。設爾何失。若異熟生。如何有頂定心無間

。此下八地中間懸隔。而起欲界異熟生心。如何復從此心無間。而得現起不動等心。如摩訶俱瑟祉羅契經中作如是問。出滅定時當觸幾觸。答言具壽。當觸三觸。謂不動觸。無所有觸。及無相觸。又異熟心宿業所引。有何道理。由滅定前要期勢力。令彼出定時限不過。復有何緣。要于有頂緣滅為境定心邊際。欲界宿業習氣所引。異熟果心方得現起。非於前位。又以何緣。於此所起異熟生色斷已不續。異熟生心斷而更續。若威儀路或工巧處。或能變化。如何此心緣威儀等。無觸而能有所造作。又許所修九次第定及八解脫體皆是善。不應此位現起染污或無記心。又用有頂緣滅為境寂靜思惟定為依止。方能現入滅受想定。如摩訶俱瑟祉羅契經中依滅盡定作如是問。幾因幾緣為依能入無相界定。答言具壽。二因二緣為依能入無相界定。謂不思惟一切相。及正思惟無相界。若滅定中有意識者。此緣何境。作何行相。若緣滅境作靜行相。如何非善。設是善者。如何不許與無貪等善根相應。設許相應。如何不許觸為緣起。若緣余境作余行相。如何入滅定心無間起散亂心而不違理。設自計度有餘無記由此二因亦不應理。是故汝等不如實知阿笈摩義。縱情妄計第六意識滅定等有。由是而執此位有心。

若爾云何許滅定等諸無心位亦

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：此下方的八地（指欲界、色界和無色界的八個禪定地）之間是相互隔絕的，而欲界的異熟生心（由過去業力成熟而產生的果報心）是如何生起的呢？又如何能從此異熟生心無間斷地現起不動心（指無色界第四禪的心）等高級禪定之心呢？正如《摩訶俱瑟祉羅契經》中這樣發問：『從滅盡定出定時，會觸及幾種觸？』回答說：『具壽（對有德長老的尊稱），會觸及三種觸，即不動觸、無所有觸和無相觸。』此外，異熟心是由宿業所牽引，有什麼道理能通過滅定前預先設定的力量，使得出定時間不會超過預定的期限呢？又有什麼緣故，一定要在以有頂天（無色界最高處）為所緣境，以滅為目標的定心結束時，由欲界宿業習氣所牽引的異熟果心才能現起，而不是在之前的階段現起呢？又因為什麼緣故，在此所生起的異熟生色（由異熟產生的色法）斷滅后不再延續，而異熟生心斷滅后卻會再次延續呢？如果涉及到威儀路（行住坐臥等行為）、工巧處（工藝技巧）或者變化神通，那麼這種心如何能緣于威儀等，在沒有觸的情況下有所造作呢？而且，既然允許所修的九次第定（從初禪到滅盡定的九個次第禪定）和八解脫（八種解脫煩惱的方法）的體性都是善的，就不應該在這個階段現起染污心（貪嗔癡等煩惱心）或者無記心（非善非惡的心）。而且，要用以有頂天為所緣境，以滅為目標的寂靜思惟定作為依止，才能現入滅受想定（滅盡受想的禪定）。正如《摩訶俱瑟祉羅契經》中依據滅盡定這樣發問：『依靠幾種因、幾種緣才能進入無相界定（無色界定）？』回答說：『具壽，依靠兩種因、兩種緣才能進入無相界定，即不思惟一切相，以及正確思惟無相界。』如果滅盡定中有意識存在，那麼這個意識緣于什麼境界？以什麼行相運作？如果緣于滅的境界，以寂靜的行相運作，為什麼不是善的呢？如果認為是善的，為什麼不承認它與無貪等善根相應呢？如果承認相應，為什麼不承認觸為緣起呢？如果緣于其他境界，以其他的行相運作，如何在入滅定心無間斷地生起散亂心而不違背道理呢？如果自己揣測有剩餘的無記心，通過這兩種因也不合道理。所以你們不如實瞭解阿笈摩（聖教）的意義，放縱自己的想法，妄自推測第六意識（末那識）在滅定等狀態中存在，因此執著于這個階段有心。如果這樣，又如何允許滅盡定等無心位也是...

【English Translation】 English version: Below these eight grounds (referring to the desire realm, form realm, and the eight dhyanas of the formless realm) are mutually isolated. How then does the resultant-born mind of the desire realm arise? And how can one, without interruption from this mind, manifest the immovable mind (referring to the fourth dhyana of the formless realm) and other higher dhyana minds? As asked in the Mahākoṣṭhila Sūtra: 'When emerging from cessation meditation, how many contacts are touched?' The answer is: 'Venerable sir, three contacts are touched, namely the immovable contact, the nothingness contact, and the signless contact.' Furthermore, the resultant mind is drawn by past karma. What principle allows the power of the prior intention before cessation meditation to ensure that the time of emerging from meditation does not exceed the predetermined limit? And for what reason must the resultant fruit mind, drawn by the habitual tendencies of past karma in the desire realm, manifest only at the end of the meditative mind that takes cessation as its object with the peak of existence (the highest realm of the formless realm) as its object, and not in the previous stages? And for what reason does the resultant-born form (rūpa) that arises here cease and not continue, while the resultant-born mind ceases and then continues again? If it involves deportment (such as walking, standing, sitting, and lying down), skillful crafts, or magical transformations, how can this mind, relying on deportment and so on, perform actions without contact? Moreover, since the nine sequential attainments (the nine successive dhyanas from the first dhyana to cessation meditation) and the eight liberations (eight methods of liberating from afflictions) are all considered to be wholesome in nature, it is inappropriate for defiled minds (such as greed, hatred, and delusion) or neutral minds (neither wholesome nor unwholesome) to arise in this state. Furthermore, one can only enter the cessation of perception and feeling meditation (nirodha-samāpatti) by relying on the tranquil contemplation meditation that takes cessation as its object with the peak of existence as its object. As asked in the Mahākoṣṭhila Sūtra regarding cessation meditation: 'Relying on how many causes and how many conditions can one enter the signless realm meditation (the formless realm dhyanas)?' The answer is: 'Venerable sir, relying on two causes and two conditions can one enter the signless realm meditation, namely not contemplating all signs and correctly contemplating the signless realm.' If there is consciousness in cessation meditation, what object does this consciousness cognize? What is its mode of operation? If it cognizes the object of cessation and operates in a tranquil mode, why is it not wholesome? If it is considered wholesome, why is it not acknowledged to be associated with wholesome roots such as non-greed? If it is acknowledged to be associated, why is contact not acknowledged as a condition for its arising? If it cognizes other objects and operates in other modes, how can a distracted mind arise without interruption from the mind in cessation meditation without contradicting reason? If one speculates that there is a remaining neutral mind, it is also unreasonable through these two causes. Therefore, you do not truly understand the meaning of the Āgamas (the sacred teachings), indulge in your own ideas, and presumptuously speculate that the sixth consciousness (manas-vijnana) exists in states such as cessation meditation, and therefore cling to the idea that there is a mind in this state. If that is the case, how can one allow that the mindlessness states such as cessation meditation are also...

有心耶。應如一類經為量者。所許細心彼位猶有。謂異熟果識具一切種子。從初結生乃至終沒。展轉相續曾無間斷。彼彼生處由異熟因。品類差別相續流轉。乃至涅槃方畢竟滅。即由此識無間斷故。于無心位亦說有心。餘六識身於此諸位皆不轉故說為無心。由滅定等加行入心增上力故。令六識種暫時損伏不得現起故名無心。非無一切。心有二種。一集起心。無量種子集起處故。二種種心。所緣行相差別轉故。滅定等位第二心闕故名無心。如一足床闕余足故亦名無足。彼諸識種被損伏位。異熟果識剎那剎那轉變差別。能損伏力漸劣漸微乃至都盡如水熱箭引燒發力。漸劣漸微至都盡位。識種爾時得生果。便初從識種意識還生。后位隨緣余識漸起。即前所說異熟果識。攝藏種種諸法種子。彼彼余識及俱有法善不善性數熏發時。隨其所應種力增盛。由此相續轉變差別。隨種力熟隨遇助緣。便感當來愛非愛果依如是義有說頌言。

心與無邊種　　俱相續恒流　遇各別熏緣　　心種便增盛　種力漸次熟　　緣合時與果　如染拘櫞花　　果時瓤色赤

世尊依此。于解深密大乘經中。說如是頌。

阿陀那識甚深細　　一切種子如暴流　我于凡愚不開演　　恐彼分別執為我

能續後有能執持身故。說此名阿

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：問：如果有人認為《一類經》是衡量標準，那麼他們所認可的細微之心（指阿賴耶識）在無心位仍然存在嗎？答：是的，他們所認可的細微之心（阿賴耶識）在無心位仍然存在。這個異熟果識（Vipāka-phala-vijñāna，指阿賴耶識的果報），具有一切種子（bīja，指潛在的可能性）。從最初的結生（pratisaṃdhi，指生命開始的時刻）到最終的死亡，它輾轉相續，從未間斷。在不同的生命處境中，由於異熟因（vipāka-hetu，指導致果報的原因）的品類差別，它相續流轉，直到涅槃（nirvāṇa，指解脫）才能徹底滅盡。正因為這個識（vijñāna，指意識）沒有間斷，所以在無心位也說有心（指阿賴耶識）。其餘六識身（指眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識和意識）在這些無心位都不起作用，所以說為無心。由於滅盡定（nirodha-samāpatti，指一種禪定狀態）等加行（prayoga，指修行）的強大力量，使得六識的種子暫時被抑制，無法顯現，所以稱為無心，並非完全沒有心。心有兩種：一是集起心（samudaya-citta，指阿賴耶識），是無量種子的集起之處；二是種種心（nānātva-citta，指六識），所緣（ālambana，指對像）和行相（ākāra，指狀態）有差別。在滅盡定等狀態中，第二種心（六識）缺失，所以稱為無心。就像只有一條腿的床，因為缺少其餘的腿，所以也稱為無腿。在那些識種（vijñāna-bīja，指意識的種子）被抑制的狀態下，異熟果識（阿賴耶識）剎那剎那地轉變差別。能夠抑制的力量逐漸減弱，直到完全消失，就像用水加熱的箭，其引燃頭髮的力量逐漸減弱，直到完全消失一樣。當識種（阿賴耶識的種子）獲得生果的機會時，最初從識種（阿賴耶識的種子）中，意識（vijñāna，指第六識）重新產生。之後，隨著因緣，其餘的識（vijñāna，指眼識等）逐漸生起。前面所說的異熟果識（阿賴耶識），攝藏著種種諸法的種子。當其餘的識（眼識等）以及俱有法（sahabhūta-dharma，指同時存在的法）的善、不善性質熏發它時，根據情況，種子的力量會增強。由此，相續轉變差別，隨著種子的力量成熟，隨著遇到助緣，便會感得未來的可愛或不可愛果報。依據這樣的意義，有人說了這樣的偈頌：『心與無邊種，俱相續恒流，遇各別熏緣，心種便增盛，種力漸次熟，緣合時與果，如染拘櫞花，果時瓤色赤。』世尊（Śākyamuni，指釋迦牟尼佛）依據這個道理，在《解深密經》（Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra，指一部重要的佛教經典）中，說了這樣的偈頌：『阿陀那識（Ādāna-vijñāna，指執持識，即阿賴耶識）甚深細，一切種子如暴流，我于凡愚不開演，恐彼分別執為我。』因為能夠延續後有（指來世的生命），能夠執持身體，所以稱此識為阿陀那識（Ādāna-vijñāna）。

【English Translation】 English version: Question: If someone considers the Ekottarika Agama (Ekottarika-āgama, refers to a specific Buddhist scripture) as the standard, do they acknowledge that the subtle mind (referring to the Ālaya-vijñāna) they accept still exists in the state of no-mind? Answer: Yes, the subtle mind (Ālaya-vijñāna) they accept still exists in the state of no-mind. This Vipāka-phala-vijñāna (refers to the resultant consciousness of the Ālaya-vijñāna), possesses all seeds (bīja, refers to potential possibilities). From the initial rebirth (pratisaṃdhi, refers to the moment of life's beginning) to the final death, it continuously flows without interruption. In different life situations, due to the variety of Vipāka-hetu (refers to the cause leading to the result), it continuously flows until Nirvāṇa (refers to liberation) is attained and completely extinguished. Precisely because this consciousness (vijñāna, refers to awareness) is uninterrupted, it is said that there is mind (referring to Ālaya-vijñāna) even in the state of no-mind. The remaining six consciousnesses (referring to eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and mind-consciousness) do not function in these states of no-mind, so it is said to be no-mind. Due to the powerful force of practices like the Nirodha-samāpatti (refers to a state of meditative absorption), the seeds of the six consciousnesses are temporarily suppressed and cannot manifest, so it is called no-mind, but it is not completely without mind. There are two types of mind: one is the Samudaya-citta (refers to the accumulating mind, i.e., Ālaya-vijñāna), which is the place where countless seeds accumulate; the other is the Nānātva-citta (refers to the various minds, i.e., the six consciousnesses), where the objects (ālambana, refers to the object of perception) and characteristics (ākāra, refers to the state) differ. In states like Nirodha-samāpatti, the second type of mind (the six consciousnesses) is absent, so it is called no-mind. Just like a bed with only one leg, because it lacks the remaining legs, it is also called legless. In those states where the consciousness seeds (vijñāna-bīja, refers to the seeds of consciousness) are suppressed, the Vipāka-phala-vijñāna (Ālaya-vijñāna) transforms and differentiates moment by moment. The power to suppress gradually weakens until it completely disappears, just like an arrow heated with water, its power to ignite hair gradually weakens until it completely disappears. When the consciousness seed (the seed of Ālaya-vijñāna) obtains the opportunity to produce a result, initially, from the consciousness seed (the seed of Ālaya-vijñāna), mind-consciousness (vijñāna, refers to the sixth consciousness) is reborn. Afterwards, depending on the conditions, the remaining consciousnesses (vijñāna, refers to eye-consciousness, etc.) gradually arise. The previously mentioned Vipāka-phala-vijñāna (Ālaya-vijñāna) contains the seeds of various dharmas. When the good or unwholesome nature of the remaining consciousnesses (eye-consciousness, etc.) and co-existent dharmas (sahabhūta-dharma, refers to simultaneously existing phenomena) influence it, depending on the situation, the power of the seeds will increase. Therefore, the continuous transformation differentiates, and as the power of the seeds matures, and as it encounters supporting conditions, it will experience future pleasant or unpleasant results. Based on this meaning, someone said this verse: 'The mind and boundless seeds, together continuously flow, encountering individual influences, the mind seeds then increase, the power of the seeds gradually matures, when conditions combine, they give results, like dyeing the kuruvinda flower, the pulp is red when it fruits.' The World Honored One (Śākyamuni, refers to the Buddha) based on this principle, in the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra (refers to an important Buddhist scripture), said this verse: 'The Ādāna-vijñāna (refers to the grasping consciousness, i.e., Ālaya-vijñāna) is very deep and subtle, all seeds are like a torrential flow, I do not reveal it to ordinary fools, fearing they will discriminate and cling to it as self.' Because it can continue future existence and can hold the body, this consciousness is called Ādāna-vijñāna.

陀那識。攝藏一切諸法種子故。復說名阿賴耶識。前生所引業異熟故。即此亦名異熟果識。若不許有此異熟識。復有何識能執持身。非有餘識能遍持身。乃至命終恒不捨故。又何處蘊煩惱隨眠對治生時可名能斷。若言蘊在能對治心。此不應理。如何隨眠煩惱隨逐可為能治。又諸有情生無色界。染善無漏心正起時。有何趣攝異熟法在。或應許趣通非異熟及不繫法。便與理違。又不還果生有頂處。為盡餘漏修對治道。無所有處無漏起時。于有頂處有何別物。自體猶存而不名死非眾同分。或覆命根離色心等別有實物。此二唯于異熟諸蘊。相似勢分而假建立。相似勢分無別實體。如稻稗等相似勢分。故定應許異六識身。有如上說持種識體。

即依此識。赤銅鍱部經中建立有分識名。大眾部經名根本識。化地部說窮生死蘊。云何此識緣境行相。此境行相不可了知。云何名識而得如是。如執滅定等位有餘。識者境界行相難知。此亦應爾。此識攝在何取蘊中。理實應言識取蘊攝。若爾經句當云何通。如說云何名識取蘊謂六識身。又說云何識緣名色識謂六識。應知此經別有密意。如契經說。云何行蘊謂六思身。非行蘊中更無餘法。此亦應爾。說六非余有何密意。且如世尊解深密說。我于凡愚不開演者。恐彼分別執為我故。何緣愚

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：陀那識（Adana-vijnana，儲存識）。因為它攝藏一切諸法種子，所以又被稱為阿賴耶識（Alaya-vijnana，藏識）。由於它是前生所引的業的異熟果，所以也稱為異熟果識。如果不承認有這個異熟識，那麼還有什麼識能夠執持身體呢？沒有其他的識能夠普遍地執持身體，乃至到生命終結都不捨棄。又在什麼蘊中，煩惱隨眠的對治生起時，可以稱為能夠斷除煩惱呢？如果說蘊在能夠對治的心中，這不合道理。如何能讓隨眠煩惱隨逐，卻又成為能被對治的對象呢？又，當諸有情生於無色界，染污、善良、無漏的心念正在生起時，有什麼趣（Gati，輪迴的去處）所攝的異熟法存在呢？或者應該允許趣通於非異熟以及不繫縛的法，這便與道理相違背。又不還果（Anagamin，三果阿羅漢）生於有頂天（Bhavagra，色界最高處），爲了斷盡剩餘的煩惱而修習對治之道，在無所有處（Akincanyayatana，無色界第二禪定）無漏心生起時，在有頂天有什麼不同的事物呢？自體仍然存在，卻不稱為死亡，也不是眾同分（Nikayasabhaga，同類眾生的共性）。或者說，命根（Jivitindriya，生命力）離開色、心等，是另外的實物。這兩種說法都只是在異熟諸蘊中，相似的勢分（Bhaga，部分）上假立的。相似的勢分沒有別的實體，就像稻子和稗子相似的勢分一樣。所以，必定應該承認在六識身之外，有如上所說的持種識體。

就是依據這個識，赤銅鍱部（Theravada，上座部）的經典中建立了有分識（Bhavanga-citta）這個名稱。大眾部（Mahasanghika）的經典中稱為根本識（Mula-vijnana）。化地部（Mahisasaka）說為窮生死蘊。這個識緣取境界的行相是怎樣的呢？這個境界行相是不可了知的。為什麼稱為識，卻又是這樣的呢？就像執取滅盡定（Nirodha-samapatti，滅受想定）等位時，還有剩餘的識，它的境界行相難以知曉，這個識也應該是這樣。這個識被攝在哪個取蘊（Upadanakkhandha，執取蘊）中呢？按道理說，應該說是識取蘊所攝。如果這樣，經句應該如何解釋呢？比如經中說：『什麼叫做識取蘊？就是六識身。』又說：『什麼叫做識緣名色識？就是六識。』應該知道這部經有別的密意。就像契經（Sutra，佛經）中說：『什麼叫做行蘊（Samskarakkhandha，行蘊）？就是六思身。』並非行蘊中就沒有其餘的法了，這裡也是這樣。說六識身而非其餘的法，有什麼密意呢？且如世尊在《解深密經》（Samdhinirmocana Sutra）中說：『我對於凡夫愚人不開演，是恐怕他們分別執著為我。』為什麼愚人

【English Translation】 English version: The Adana-vijnana (receptacle consciousness). Because it stores all the seeds of all dharmas, it is also called the Alaya-vijnana (storehouse consciousness). Because it is the Vipaka (result) of karma led by previous lives, it is also called the Vipaka-result consciousness. If this Vipaka consciousness is not admitted, then what consciousness can hold the body? No other consciousness can universally hold the body, not even abandoning it until the end of life. Also, in what Skandha (aggregate), when the antidote to Klesha-anusaya (affliction latent) arises, can it be called capable of cutting off afflictions? If it is said that the Skandha is in the mind that can counteract it, this is not reasonable. How can latent afflictions be followed, yet become objects that can be counteracted? Also, when sentient beings are born in the Arūpadhātu (formless realm), and defiled, virtuous, and non-outflow thoughts are arising, what Gati (realm of rebirth) contains the Vipaka-dharma? Or it should be allowed that Gati communicates with non-Vipaka and non-bound dharmas, which contradicts reason. Also, when an Anagamin (non-returner) is born in Bhavagra (peak of existence), in order to exhaust the remaining outflows, they cultivate the antidote path. When non-outflow mind arises in Akincanyayatana (sphere of nothingness), what different thing is there in Bhavagra? The self still exists, but it is not called death, nor is it Nikayasabhaga (community of beings). Or, the Jivitindriya (life force) is a separate real thing apart from form, mind, etc. Both of these statements are only hypothetically established on similar Bhaga (aspects) in the Vipaka Skandhas. Similar Bhaga has no separate entity, just like the similar Bhaga of rice and weeds. Therefore, it must be admitted that there is a seed-holding consciousness body as described above, apart from the six Vijnana-kayas (consciousness bodies).

It is based on this consciousness that the Theravada school establishes the name Bhavanga-citta (life-continuum consciousness) in their scriptures. The Mahasanghika school calls it Mula-vijnana (root consciousness) in their scriptures. The Mahisasaka school speaks of it as the aggregate that exhausts life and death. What is the aspect of this consciousness in perceiving objects? This aspect of perceiving objects is unknowable. Why is it called consciousness, yet it is like this? Just like when grasping Nirodha-samapatti (cessation attainment) and other states, there is still remaining consciousness, and its aspect of perceiving objects is difficult to know, this consciousness should also be like this. In which Upadanakkhandha (aggregate of clinging) is this consciousness contained? In principle, it should be said that it is contained in the Vijnana Upadanakkhandha. If so, how should the sutra verses be explained? For example, the sutra says: 'What is called Vijnana Upadanakkhandha? It is the six Vijnana-kayas.' And it also says: 'What is called consciousness that conditions Nama-rupa (name and form)? It is the six consciousnesses.' It should be known that this sutra has a different hidden meaning. Just like the Sutra says: 'What is called Samskarakkhandha (aggregate of mental formations)? It is the six bodies of thought.' It is not that there are no other dharmas in the Samskarakkhandha, it is the same here. What is the hidden meaning of saying the six consciousnesses and not other dharmas? For example, the World Honored One said in the Samdhinirmocana Sutra: 'I do not expound to foolish ordinary people, for fear that they will discriminate and cling to it as self.' Why do foolish people

夫執此為我。此無始來窮生死際。行相微細無改變故。又以六識所依所緣行相品類粗易了故。與諸煩惱及對治道有相應故。建立雜染清凈品故。體是果識由此比知有種識故。諸契經中隨所宣說不說因識。與上所說皆相違故。是名說六非余密意。由此已釋。餘部經中唯說六識身為有分識等。隨其所應皆無違害。又於今時一一部內無量契經皆已隱沒。如釋軌論廣辯應知。故不應計阿賴耶識定非經說。理必有故。若爾一身應有二識俱時而轉。謂異熟識及余轉識。如是何過。若一身中二識俱轉。應俱時立二有情身。如余身中二識俱轉。此無有失。因果二識展轉為依不相離故。又異熟識是余轉識所熏習故。非異身中二識俱轉。有如是事故無此失。頗有現見種與種果相續異耶。現見世間青蓮花等。根與莖等相續各異而為種果。此亦應然。又縱世間見與不見。若不許有阿賴耶識。便有如前所說過難。故應定許阿賴耶識離六識身其體實有。

何緣不許我體實有與六識身為所依止。汝所執我其相云何。而說能為六識依止。若許我如阿賴耶識生滅相續隨緣轉變。與識何殊。而執為我。若執我體是一是常畢竟無變。如何可說受識等熏為所依止。夫熏習者。令彼所熏相續變成功能差別。如紫礦汁熏拘櫞花。令彼相續功能轉變。若無熏習則

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：如果執著于『這個』是『我』，那麼從無始以來直到生死輪迴的盡頭，它的行相非常微細，不會改變。而且，因為六識所依賴和緣取的行相品類粗顯易懂，與各種煩惱以及對治之道相應，建立雜染和清凈的品類，它的本體是果識。由此可以推知有種子識的存在。如果各種契經中隨處宣說而不說因識，就與上面所說的相違背。這叫做說六識而非其他識的密意。由此已經解釋了，其他部經中只說六識的身為有分識等，都隨其所應沒有違背。而且在現在，一部部經中的無量契經都已經隱沒，如《釋軌論》中廣泛辯論所應知的那樣。所以不應該認為阿賴耶識一定不是經中所說，因為從道理上來說必然存在。如果這樣，那麼一身應該有兩個識同時運轉，即異熟識和其餘的轉識。這樣有什麼過失呢？如果一身中有兩個識同時運轉，應該同時成立兩個有情身，就像其餘身中有兩個識同時運轉一樣。這沒有過失，因為因果二識輾轉為依，不會相離。而且異熟識是其餘轉識所熏習的，不是異身中有兩個識同時運轉。有這樣的原因，所以沒有這個過失。難道有現見的種子和種子果相續不同的嗎？現見世間青蓮花等的根和莖等相續各異，而作為種子果。這也應該如此。而且即使世間見到與見不到，如果不允許有阿賴耶識，就會有如前面所說的過難。所以應該一定允許阿賴耶識離開六識身，它的本體是真實存在的。為什麼不允許『我』的本體真實存在，並且作為六識身所依賴的處所呢？你所執著的『我』的相狀是什麼樣的，而說能作為六識的依止？如果允許『我』像阿賴耶識一樣生滅相續，隨緣轉變，那麼和識有什麼區別呢？而執著為『我』。如果執著『我』的本體是同一的、常恒的、畢竟不變的，那麼如何可以說接受識等的熏習，作為所依賴的處所呢？所謂的熏習，是使被熏習的事物相續變成功能差別，就像用紫礦汁熏拘櫞花，使它的相續功能轉變。如果沒有熏習，那麼...

【English Translation】 English version: If one clings to 'this' as 'I,' then from beginningless time until the end of the cycle of birth and death, its characteristics are very subtle and unchanging. Moreover, because the characteristics of the six consciousnesses (six vijnanas) (the six types of consciousness: visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, and mental) on which they rely and which they apprehend are coarse and easily understood, corresponding to various afflictions (kleshas) and antidotal paths, and establishing the categories of defilement and purity, its essence is resultant consciousness (vipaka-vijnana). From this, it can be inferred that there is seed consciousness (bija-vijnana). If the sutras (scriptures) everywhere proclaim without mentioning causal consciousness, it contradicts what was said above. This is called the hidden meaning of speaking of the six consciousnesses and not others. From this, it has been explained that in other scriptures, only the body of the six consciousnesses is spoken of as the life-continuum consciousness (bhavaṅga-citta), etc., and all are without contradiction as appropriate. Moreover, at present, countless sutras in each section have already disappeared, as should be known from the extensive debate in the Commentary on the Compendium of Principles (釋軌論). Therefore, it should not be thought that the alaya consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna) (storehouse consciousness) is definitely not spoken of in the scriptures, because it necessarily exists according to reason. If so, then one body should have two consciousnesses operating simultaneously, namely, the resultant consciousness and the remaining active consciousnesses. What fault is there in this? If two consciousnesses operate simultaneously in one body, then two sentient beings should be established simultaneously, just as two consciousnesses operate simultaneously in other bodies. There is no fault in this, because the cause and effect consciousnesses rely on each other and are not separate. Moreover, the resultant consciousness is conditioned by the remaining active consciousnesses, not that two consciousnesses operate simultaneously in different bodies. Because there is such a reason, there is no such fault. Is there any visible difference between the continuity of seed and seed-fruit? In the world, the roots and stems of blue lotuses, etc., are seen to be different in continuity, but they serve as seed-fruit. This should also be the case. Moreover, even if the world sees or does not see, if the alaya consciousness is not allowed, there will be the difficulties mentioned earlier. Therefore, it should definitely be allowed that the alaya consciousness is separate from the body of the six consciousnesses, and its essence is truly existent. Why is it not allowed that the essence of 'I' is truly existent and serves as the place on which the body of the six consciousnesses relies? What is the nature of the 'I' that you cling to, and say that it can serve as the basis for the six consciousnesses? If it is allowed that 'I,' like the alaya consciousness, arises and ceases in succession, changing according to conditions, then what is the difference between it and consciousness? And why cling to it as 'I'? If one clings to the essence of 'I' as being one, constant, and ultimately unchanging, then how can it be said to receive the conditioning of consciousness, etc., and serve as the place of reliance? The so-called conditioning is to cause the conditioned thing to continuously transform into functional differences, just as using purple mineral juice to condition citron flowers causes its continuous function to transform. If there is no conditioning, then...

無轉變差別功能。如何先時領智貪等數習異故。后經久時念智貪等生起差別。又無心位與彼后時我體無別。今既無識。后意識等從何而生。又于識等我有何能。而執我為識等依止。若言識等因我故生。我體恒時既無差別。如何識等漸次而生。非於一時一切頓起。若謂更待余因緣助方能生者。離余因緣。如何知有我能生用。若言識等依我而轉。諸法才生無間即滅。既無住義何容有轉。故不應執我體實有與六識身為所依止。又執有我。違阿笈摩說一切法皆無有我故。汝所執一常實我都無正理。但率妄情。

由此證成。但思差別熏習同時阿賴耶識令其相續轉變差別。能引當來愛非愛果。非如彼說身語業相。

若不許有身語二業。豈能遺謗三業契經。不能遺謗。然能如理解釋此經令無過失。如何無失解釋此經。應除執毒當爲廣說。何為契經說有三業。何者是身何者是業。何義名身何義名業。復以何義名為身業語業意業。問亦如是。復以何緣契經唯說身等三業。非眼等耶。何為契經說三業者。為顯三業攝十業道。勸勵怖多所作者故。如略說三學授佛栗氏子。有執諸業唯身所造非語非意。為顯彼二亦有所造故說三業。身謂諸根大造和合差別為體。業即是思差別為性。積集所成。是為身義。大造極微積整合故。有說種種

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本：沒有轉變和差別的功能。如果因為先前領悟、智慧、貪婪等習性的不同，導致後來經過長時間，念頭、智慧、貪婪等生起時有差別。又在沒有心識的狀態下，與之後我（ātman）的本體沒有區別。現在既然沒有意識，之後的意識等從何而生？又對於意識等，我有什麼能力，而執著於我作為意識等的依靠？如果說意識等因為我而生，我的本體恒常沒有差別，為何意識等漸次產生，而不是一時全部產生？如果說還要等待其他因緣的幫助才能產生，離開其他因緣，如何知道我有產生的作用？如果說意識等依靠我而運轉，諸法才產生無間就滅亡，既然沒有停留的意義，怎麼能有運轉？所以不應該執著於我的本體真實存在，作為六識身的依靠。又執著于有我，違背了《阿笈摩經》（Āgama）所說的一切法都沒有我的教義。你所執著的一個常存的、真實的我都毫無道理，只是隨從虛妄的情感。

由此證明，只有思惟差別熏習同時的阿賴耶識（Ālaya-vijñāna），使其相續轉變差別，才能引來將來的可愛或不可愛的果報。而不是像他們所說的身語業相。

如果不承認有身語二業，怎麼能避免誹謗三業的契經？不能避免誹謗。但是能夠如理地解釋這部經，使它沒有過失。如何沒有過失地解釋這部經？應該去除執著毒害，當爲你廣泛解說。什麼是契經所說的三業？什麼是身？什麼是業？什麼意義稱為身？什麼意義稱為業？又以什麼意義稱為身業、語業、意業？問題也是這樣。又以什麼因緣契經只說身等三業，而不是眼等呢？契經說三業是爲了顯示三業包含十業道，勸勉和恐嚇多數造作者。例如簡略地說三學來教導佛栗氏子（Buddha ṛṣi-putra）。有人執著于諸業只有身體所造，不是語言和意念所造。爲了顯示語言和意念也有所造，所以說三業。身是指諸根、大種、造色和合的差別為體。業就是思惟的差別為性質，積集所成，這是身的意義。大種由極微積整合，所以有種種。

【English Translation】 English version: It has no function of transformation or differentiation. If, because of the differences in prior understanding, wisdom, greed, and other habitual tendencies, there are differences in the arising of thoughts, wisdom, greed, etc., after a long time. Moreover, in the state of no mind, there is no difference between it and the subsequent self (ātman). Now that there is no consciousness, from where do subsequent consciousnesses, etc., arise? Furthermore, what ability do I have regarding consciousness, etc., that I cling to the self as the basis of consciousness, etc.? If it is said that consciousness, etc., arise because of the self, and the essence of the self is constant and without difference, why do consciousnesses, etc., arise gradually, and not all at once? If it is said that it is necessary to wait for the assistance of other causes and conditions in order to arise, how can it be known that I have the ability to produce apart from other causes and conditions? If it is said that consciousness, etc., operate based on the self, then as soon as phenomena arise, they immediately cease. Since there is no meaning of abiding, how can there be operation? Therefore, one should not cling to the idea that the essence of the self is truly existent, serving as the basis for the six consciousness bodies. Furthermore, clinging to the existence of a self contradicts the teaching in the Āgama that all phenomena are without a self. The one, constant, and real self that you cling to is completely without reason; it is merely following deluded emotions.

From this, it is proven that only the Ālaya-vijñāna, with its simultaneous thinking, differentiation, and habitual tendencies, can cause the continuous transformation and differentiation that leads to future desirable or undesirable consequences, and not the characteristics of body, speech, and mind karma as they say.

If one does not acknowledge the existence of bodily and verbal karma, how can one avoid slandering the sutras (sūtra) that teach the three karmas? One cannot avoid slander. However, one can explain this sutra reasonably so that it is without fault. How can one explain this sutra without fault? One should remove the poison of attachment, and I will explain it extensively for you. What are the three karmas spoken of in the sutras? What is the body? What is karma? What meaning is called body? What meaning is called karma? And in what sense are they called bodily karma, verbal karma, and mental karma? The questions are the same. Furthermore, for what reason do the sutras only speak of the three karmas of body, etc., and not of the eyes, etc.? The reason the sutras speak of the three karmas is to show that the three karmas encompass the ten paths of karma, encouraging and frightening the majority of those who create karma. For example, the Buddha ṛṣi-putra was taught the three learnings in brief. Some cling to the idea that all karma is created only by the body, and not by speech or mind. In order to show that speech and mind also create karma, the three karmas are spoken of. The body refers to the differences in the combination of the sense organs, the great elements, and the produced matter as its essence. Karma is the difference in thought as its nature, accumulated and formed; this is the meaning of body. The great elements are accumulated from extremely small particles, so there are various kinds.

穢惡整合。是為身義。身是種種諸不凈物所依處故。若爾天趣應無有身。隨作者意有所造作。是為業義。能動身思說名身業。思有三種。一審慮思。二決定思。三動發思。若思能動身即說為身業。此思能引令身相續異方生因風界起故。具足應言動身之業。除動之言但名身業。如益力之油但名力油。如動塵之風但名塵風。此亦如是十業道中。初三業道許身業攝。謂殺生不與取欲邪行。如何思業而得彼名。由此思業能動其身。令行殺盜及邪行故。思力動身令有所作即名思作。如世間說狂賊燒村薪草熟飯。思復云何得名業道。思有造作故名為業。復與善趣惡趣為道。通生彼故得業道名。或所動身是思業道三種思業依彼轉故。又殺盜淫由思業起依身而生。隨世俗故亦名身業。然此實非善不善性。亦隨世俗假立其名。為令世間依此門故。于善惡思勤修止作。是故假說善不善名。若唯思業是善不善。何故業道契經中言。由身三種故思造業。作及增長是不善故。能生苦果及苦異熟。此經意說。能動于身。以身為門。身為依處。緣殺盜淫為境。思業為因能感苦果異熟名身三種故思造業。除此餘思名為意業。意相應故不能動發身及語故。若爾何緣經說。二業所謂思業及思已業。即前所說三種思中。初二種思名為思業。第三一思名思已業。

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本穢惡整合，這就是身的含義。因為身體是各種不凈之物的依處。如果這樣說，那麼天趣眾生應該沒有身體，因為他們的身體是隨作者（指造業者）的意願所造作的。這就是業的含義。能夠發動身體的思，稱為身業。思有三種：一是審慮思，二是決定思，三是動發思。如果思能夠發動身體，就稱為身業。這種思能夠引導身體相續，因為它是異方（指不同的生存狀態）生因，風界（指構成身體的元素之一）生起的原因。完整地說應該是『動身之業』，省略了『動』字，只稱為身業。如同『益力之油』只稱為『力油』，『動塵之風』只稱為『塵風』。這裡也是如此。十業道中，最初的三種業道屬於身業的範疇，即殺生、不與取（偷盜）和欲邪行。為什麼思業會得到這些名稱呢？因為這些思業能夠發動身體，使之進行殺生、偷盜和邪淫的行為。思的力量發動身體使其有所作為，就稱為思作。如同世俗所說，狂賊燒燬村莊，薪柴燒熟飯食。思又如何能被稱為業道呢？思具有造作性，所以稱為業。又因為它能通往善趣或惡趣，使眾生得以生於彼處，所以得到業道的名稱。或者說，被思所發動的身體是思的業道，因為三種思業都依它而運轉。而且，殺盜淫是由思業發起，依身而生，所以隨順世俗的說法，也稱為身業。然而，這些實際上並非善或不善的性質，只是隨順世俗而假立其名，爲了讓世間眾生依此門徑，對善惡之思勤加修習止息和造作，所以才假說為善或不善之名。如果只有思業才是善或不善，那麼為什麼在業道契經中說：『由身三種，故思造業，作及增長是不善故，能生苦果及苦異熟』？這部經的意思是說，能夠發動身體，以身體為門徑，以身體為依處，以殺盜淫為對象，思業為因，能夠感得苦果和異熟，所以稱為『身三種故思造業』。除了這些之外的思，稱為意業，因為它只與意相應，不能發動身體和語言。如果這樣，那麼為什麼經中說有兩種業，即思業和思已業？就是前面所說的三種思中，最初的兩種思稱為思業，第三種思稱為思已業。

【English Translation】 English version 'The accumulation of filth and evil' – this is the meaning of 'body'. Because the body is the place where all kinds of impure things reside. If that's the case, then beings in the heavenly realms should not have bodies, because their bodies are created according to the intention of the creator (referring to the one who creates karma). This is the meaning of 'karma'. The thought that can move the body is called 'body karma'. There are three types of thought: first, deliberative thought; second, decisive thought; and third, activating thought. If thought can move the body, it is called 'body karma'. This thought can lead to the continuation of the body, because it is the cause of birth in different states of existence, and the cause of the arising of the wind element (referring to one of the elements that constitute the body). To say it completely, it should be 'the karma of moving the body', but the word 'moving' is omitted, and it is simply called 'body karma'. Just as 'oil that increases strength' is simply called 'strength oil', and 'wind that moves dust' is simply called 'dust wind'. It is the same here. Among the ten paths of karma, the first three paths of karma belong to the category of body karma, namely, killing, not giving (stealing), and sexual misconduct. Why do thought karmas get these names? Because these thought karmas can move the body, causing it to engage in acts of killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct. The power of thought moves the body to do something, which is called 'thought action'. Just as the world says, a mad thief burns down a village, firewood cooks rice. How can thought be called a path of karma? Thought has the nature of creation, so it is called karma. And because it can lead to good or bad destinies, allowing beings to be born there, it is called the path of karma. Or, the body moved by thought is the path of karma of thought, because the three types of thought karma operate based on it. Moreover, killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct arise from thought karma and are born from the body, so according to worldly conventions, they are also called body karma. However, these are actually not of a good or bad nature, but are named according to worldly conventions, in order to allow sentient beings to diligently cultivate cessation and creation of good and evil thoughts based on this path, so they are falsely called good or bad names. If only thought karma is good or bad, then why does the Sutra on the Paths of Karma say: 'Because of the three types of body, thought creates karma, and making and increasing are not good, so they can produce bitter fruits and bitter results'? The meaning of this sutra is that it can move the body, using the body as a gateway, using the body as a place of reliance, taking killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct as objects, and thought karma as the cause, which can bring about bitter fruits and different results, so it is called 'thought creates karma because of the three types of body'. Thoughts other than these are called mind karma, because it only corresponds to the mind and cannot move the body and speech. If so, then why does the sutra say that there are two types of karma, namely, thought karma and karma after thought? That is, among the three types of thought mentioned earlier, the first two types of thought are called thought karma, and the third type of thought is called karma after thought.

無違經過。語謂語言音聲為性。此能表了所欲說義故名為語。能發語思說名語業。或復語者字等所依。由帶字等能詮表義故名為語。具足應言發語之業。除發之言但名語業。喻說如前。意者謂識能思量故。趣向餘生及境界故。說名為意。作動意思說名意業。令意造作善不善等種種事故。具足應言作意之業。除作之言但名意業。或意相應業名意業。除相應言但名意業。喻說如前。若三種業但思為體。于散亂心及無心位。爾時無思如何得有名具律儀不律儀者。由思差別所熏成種不損壞故。名具律儀不律儀者。故無有過。思差別者。簡取勝思能發律儀不律儀表。由此思故熏成二種殊勝種子。依二種子未損壞位。假立善惡律儀無表。齊何當言損壞如是由思差別所熏成種。謂從此後不作因生遮不遮思。如先所受誰能損壞如是種子。謂若有思能發於表。因此棄捨善惡律儀。及余舍因亦能損壞。所以不說眼等業者。由此經中。但說有情加行之業。不說諸法作用之業。何謂有情加行之業。謂隨作者意所造作。何謂諸法作用之業。謂眼耳等各別功能。

佛說三業義深細　　我依理教妙辯成　愿乘此福濟群生　　咸使速證清凈覺

大乘成業論一卷

【現代漢語翻譯】現代漢語譯本無違越的行為稱為『經過』。這裡所說的『語』，是指以語言音聲為自性的行為。因為語言能夠表達想要說的意義，所以稱為『語』。能夠引發語言的思考，並說出來，稱為『語業』。或者，『語』是指文字等所依賴的基礎。由於帶有文字等，能夠詮釋表達意義，所以稱為『語』。完整地說，應該稱為『發語之業』。省略『發』字，只稱為『語業』。比喻的說法如前所述。『意』是指心識能夠進行思量，並且趨向于其他生命和境界，所以稱為『意』。產生思量的行為，稱為『意業』。使心意造作善、不善等各種事情，完整地說，應該稱為『作意之業』。省略『作』字，只稱為『意業』。或者，與『意』相應的行為稱為『意業』。省略『相應』字，只稱為『意業』。比喻的說法如前所述。如果說三種業都以思為本體，那麼在散亂的心和無心的狀態下，沒有思的時候，怎麼能說具有律儀（Vinaya，戒律）或不律儀（non-Vinaya，非戒律）呢？這是因為思的差別所熏習成的種子沒有損壞的緣故，所以說具有律儀或不律儀，因此沒有過失。思的差別，是指選取殊勝的思，能夠引發律儀或不律儀的顯現。由於這種思，熏習成了兩種殊勝的種子。依靠這兩種種子沒有損壞的狀態，假立善惡律儀的無表業（Avijñapti-karma，無表色）。到什麼時候才能說種子損壞呢？就是由思的差別所熏習成的種子，指的是從此以後，不作產生遮止或不遮止的思。像先前所受持的律儀，誰能損壞這樣的種子呢？就是如果有思能夠引發身語的表達，因此捨棄了善惡律儀，以及其他的捨棄之因，也能損壞種子。為什麼不說眼等業呢？因為這部經中，只說了有情（sentient beings）的加行之業（volitional action），沒有說諸法（Dharma，事物）的作用之業。什麼是有情的加行之業呢？就是隨著作者的意願所造作的行為。什麼是諸法的作用之業呢？就是眼耳等各自的功能。佛說三業義理深奧精細，我依據經文和道理，巧妙地辯論闡明。愿憑藉這功德利益眾生，使他們都能迅速證得清凈的覺悟。《大乘成業論》一卷

【English Translation】 English version 『Going through』 is called non-violation. The 『speech』 here refers to the act whose nature is language and sound. Because language can express the meaning one wants to say, it is called 『speech』. The thought that can initiate speech and then speak it out is called 『speech karma』 (Vak-karma). Or, 『speech』 refers to the basis upon which words and the like rely. Because it carries words and the like, and can interpret and express meaning, it is called 『speech』. Fully speaking, it should be called 『the karma of uttering speech』. Omitting the word 『uttering』, it is simply called 『speech karma』. The metaphorical explanation is as described before. 『Mind』 refers to consciousness that can think and tends towards other lives and realms, so it is called 『mind』. The act of generating thought is called 『mind karma』 (Manas-karma). Causing the mind to create various things such as good and non-good, fully speaking, it should be called 『the karma of mental action』. Omitting the word 『mental action』, it is simply called 『mind karma』. Or, the karma corresponding to 『mind』 is called 『mind karma』. Omitting the word 『corresponding』, it is simply called 『mind karma』. The metaphorical explanation is as described before. If the three karmas are said to have thought as their essence, then in a scattered mind and a state of no-mind, when there is no thought, how can one be said to possess Vinaya (discipline) or non-Vinaya (non-discipline)? This is because the seeds formed by the differentiation of thought are not damaged, so it is said that one possesses Vinaya or non-Vinaya, therefore there is no fault. The differentiation of thought refers to selecting the superior thought that can initiate the manifestation of Vinaya or non-Vinaya. Because of this thought, two kinds of superior seeds are cultivated. Relying on the state where these two seeds are not damaged, the unmanifested karma (Avijñapti-karma) of good and evil Vinaya is provisionally established. When can it be said that the seeds are damaged? It refers to the seeds cultivated by the differentiation of thought, which means that from then on, one does not create thoughts that generate prohibition or non-prohibition. Like the Vinaya previously received, who can damage such seeds? It is when there is thought that can initiate the expression of body and speech, thereby abandoning good and evil Vinaya, and other causes of abandonment can also damage the seeds. Why are the karmas of the eye and so on not mentioned? Because in this sutra, only the volitional action (加行之業) of sentient beings (有情) is mentioned, not the action of phenomena (Dharma). What is the volitional action of sentient beings? It is the action created according to the will of the author. What is the action of phenomena? It is the respective functions of the eyes, ears, and so on. The Buddha spoke of the profound and subtle meaning of the three karmas, and I, relying on the scriptures and reason, skillfully debate and elucidate them. May I, relying on this merit, benefit all beings, so that they may all quickly attain pure enlightenment. The Great Vehicle Treatise on the Accomplishment of Karma, one volume