[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) › 59.97 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 59.97 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 59.97 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [59.97](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.59.97) 疏「以貪是業有之本」者，有即是業，亦是三有。故十二緣中過去名業，現在名有。而貪若未決，但名煩惱，決即名業，故為業本耳。不似殺等，依貪等心方顯身口行殺等事，故云更無所依。所依既非攬因所成，不同殺等，故無果行。既無因果，安有二離？ > Regarding the Commentary's statement, "Because covetousness is the root of karmic becoming": becoming (\*bhava\*) is karma, and it is also the three realms of existence (\*tribhava\*). Therefore, among the twelve links of dependent origination, the past is called karma, and the present is called becoming. If covetousness is not yet decided, it is merely called an affliction; once decided, it is called karma, which is why it is the root of karma. Unlike killing and the like, which depend on a mind of greed or the like to manifest actions of body and speech that commit murder and the like, it is said to have nothing further to rely on. Since the basis is not formed by gathering causes, unlike killing and the like, there is no resulting action. Having neither cause nor result, how could there be the two forms of renunciation? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 59.96](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.59.96) - [Next: 59.98](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.59.98) - [Up: 59](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.59) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.59.97) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.59.97](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.59.97) · Pramāṇa