[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) › 8.31 # 維摩經略疏垂裕記 8.31 維摩經略疏垂裕記 8.31 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [8.31](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1779.8.31) 二、釋果疾，二：初、約四大。二、約四相。「如瑞應」等者，荊溪云：問何不云生？答：三由於生，生亦由三，故不別出。「火譬貪」者，以己攝他，如火焚薪。「水譬瞋」者，嗔心毀慈，如水溺物。「今一往」等者，荊溪云：通別二義，於理方成。何者？由此三毒通感於身，別對非無，通造為善，故引通文以成別也。 > Second, explaining resultant illness, which has two parts: first, in terms of the four great elements; second, in terms of the four marks. As for "like the \*Ruiying\*," and so forth, Jingxi says: Question: Why does it not mention birth? Answer: The three stem from birth, and birth also stems from the three, so it is not separately set forth. As for "fire is compared to greed," it gathers others to oneself, like fire burning firewood. As for "water is compared to anger," an angry mind destroys compassion, like water drowning things. As for "now in an initial pass," and so forth, Jingxi says: Only with both common and distinct meanings does it become complete in principle. Why? Because these three poisons commonly induce \[the illness of\] the body; distinct correspondences are not absent, but common creation is good, so it cites the common text to complete the distinct. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 8.30](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1779.8.30) - [Next: 8.32](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1779.8.32) - [Up: 8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1779.8) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1779~en-mt.8.31) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1779.8.31](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1779.8.31) · Pramāṇa