[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) › [維摩經略疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778) › 8.35 # 維摩經略疏 8.35 維摩經略疏 8.35 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [8.35](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.8.35) 「又問至為本」，第四問答。初文殊問。虛妄分別是欲貪本者，斷欲貪盡有色愛住地，虛妄分別復誰為本？次淨名答「顛倒想為本」。顛倒想者，實無有心，顛倒計有能生虛妄，分別色心異故有色愛。若斷色愛，則不分別有色異心，但有顛倒之想計有此心。若但有心，即是無色愛住地。 > From "He also asked" to "as the root" is the fourth question and answer. First, Mañjuśrī asks: if false conceptualization is the root of desire and greed, and after desire and greed are completely severed there is the entrenchment of form-attachment, what does false conceptualization in turn take as its root? Next, Vimalakīrti answers, "Inverted notions are the root." As for inverted notions: in reality there is no mind, yet inverted notions mistakenly posit that it exists and can produce false conceptualization; discerning form and mind as distinct, there is therefore form-attachment. If form-attachment is severed, one does not discern that there is form distinct from mind, but merely possesses the inverted notion that mistakenly posits the existence of this mind. If there is only mind, this is precisely the entrenchment of formless-attachment. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 8.34](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.8.34) - [Next: 8.36](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.8.36) - [Up: 8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.8) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778~en-mt.8.35) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.8.35](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.8.35) · Pramāṇa