[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) › [維摩經略疏垂裕記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1779) › 3.41 # 維摩經略疏垂裕記 3.41 維摩經略疏垂裕記 3.41 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.41](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1779.3.41) 二、結聲益。「四教明三種至云云」者，荊溪云：若有我者則有造作，若有造作當來有受，故知無我則無造受。但前二教約界內真，後之二教約界外真。此中正約作時無我，非謂不作方名無我。故知作時作體本無，雖曰本無業不敗失。秖緣本無，得論約觀修令無我，故約佛說作受本無。而眾生作及佛菩薩作不敗亡，故得用結不有不無。「通別無明」等者，界內界外皆以苦集為惡、道滅為善，此就大綱。若綱目細論，則各有善惡。且如界內苦集總包六道三善三惡，道滅則於界內名善，以無明全在，望界外仍惡。界外善惡可以比說。當以地住相望高下以明善惡，唯圓佛果究竟之滅無惡可論，故荊溪云：唯佛獨善，唯善不亡。 > Second, concluding the benefit of voice. Regarding "The four teachings clarify the three kinds \[…\] and so forth": Jingxi says: If there were a self, there would be making; if there were making, in the future there would be receiving \[of retribution\]; thus one knows that if there is no self, there is neither making nor receiving. But the former two teachings are treated in terms of the truth within the realms, while the latter two teachings are treated in terms of the truth beyond the realms. Here it is specifically treated in terms of there being no self at the very time of action; it does not mean that only when not acting is it called no-self. Hence one knows that at the time of acting, the agent's essence is fundamentally non-existent; though said to be fundamentally non-existent, karma is not lost. Precisely because it is fundamentally non-existent, one can discuss practicing contemplation to bring about no-self; hence in terms of the Buddha's preaching, making and receiving are fundamentally non-existent. Yet the actions of sentient beings and the actions of Buddhas and bodhisattvas are not destroyed; thus this can be used to conclude \[the meaning of\] neither existent nor non-existent. Regarding "Common and distinct ignorance" and so forth: both within and beyond the realms take suffering and origination as evil, and path and cessation as good; this is in broad outline. If discussed in fine detail of outline and points, each has good and evil. For instance, within the realms, suffering and origination generally encompass the six destinies, the three good and three evil; path and cessation are called good within the realms, but since ignorance is entirely present, viewed from beyond the realms it is still evil. Good and evil beyond the realms can be analogously explained. One should contrast the stages and abodes as higher and lower to clarify good and evil; only the ultimate cessation of the Buddha-fruit of the perfect \[teaching\] has no evil that can be spoken of. Therefore Jingxi says: Only the Buddha is exclusively good; only the good does not perish. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.40](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1779.3.40) - [Next: 3.42](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1779.3.42) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1779.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1779~en-mt.3.41) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1779.3.41](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1779.3.41) · Pramāṇa