[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) › [中觀論疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824) › 8.5 # 中觀論疏 8.5 中觀論疏 8.5 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [8.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.8.5) 「問曰」下，第二番破業相續義，前立、次破。立中為二：初通明業相續離斷常、第二別出十善業能得果報。初又二：前兩偈明外法相續離斷常，即是喻說；次兩偈即是內法相續離斷常，即是合喻。二偈為三：初偈正明相續、次半偈明相續故有果、三半偈結離斷常，文易知也。「是善業因緣果報者」下，第二別出十善業能得果報。所以偏舉十善者，同上慈業義也。慈是眾善業中之勝，十善亦爾。《智度論》云「有佛無佛常有十善，故十善是舊善。若是餘善，有佛則有、無佛則無，稱為客善。」問：文云十白業道，云何為業？云何為業道耶？答：經論不同。《優婆塞經》云「如是十事，三是業而非道，七亦業亦道。」《智度論》云「三道而非業，七亦業亦道。」今須會釋之。經正取意為業，但意不自通，故是業而非道。論明三煩惱起業而非業，故云道而非業。各據一途也。論師明四句：一業而非道，如《優婆塞經》。二道而非業，如論明三煩惱也。三亦業亦業道，如七業是也。四非業非道，如身口色聲。毘曇師亦四句，與此大異：一道而非業，謂貪瞋邪見，能暢思為道，體非思故非業。二業而非道，即思是也，思造作故名業，無更有思故非思之道。三亦業亦道，即身口七，當體是業，又暢思為道。四非業非道，即思前三不善根，但能生思不能暢思故非道，而復非思故非業也。問：依《智度論》，三煩惱是道非業，今云何言十業道？論主答云：以少從多，故皆名業道也。「答曰」下，第二破。所以但總非者，一者外人雖有此救，終不離於斷常，是故不受。二者欲至後總一時破之，是故此中但略非也。又知其義勢未盡，所以直非，引其後救，一時總破。長行為二：初奪破；「復次」下，縱破也。 > From "The question says" downward is the second round, which refutes the thesis of the continuity of karma; first it establishes it, and next refutes it. Within the establishment there are two parts: first, a general explanation that the continuity of karma is free from annihilation and permanence; second, a specific presentation of the ten wholesome karmas being able to obtain retributions. The first part also has two sections: the first two verses explain the continuity of external phenomena as free from annihilation and permanence, which is the explanation by metaphor; the next two verses are the continuity of internal phenomena being free from annihilation and permanence, which is the application of the metaphor. The \[latter\] two verses have three parts: the first verse directly explains continuity; the next half-verse explains that due to continuity there is a fruit; the third half-verse concludes that it is free from annihilation and permanence; the text is easy to understand. From "The causes and conditions and retribution of this wholesome karma" downward is the second part, which specifically presents the ten wholesome karmas being able to obtain retributions. The reason for particularly citing the ten wholesome actions is identical to the meaning of the karma of benevolence above: benevolence is the foremost among the wholesome karmas, and the ten wholesome actions are likewise so. The \*Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa\* says: "Whether there is a Buddha or no Buddha, there are always the ten wholesome actions; thus the ten wholesome actions are constant virtues. Other virtues exist when there is a Buddha and do not exist when there is no Buddha, and are called visiting virtues." Question: The text says "ten bright courses of karma"; what is karma, and what is a course of karma? Answer: Sūtras and treatises differ. The \*Upāsaka\[-śīla\] Sūtra\* says: "Of these ten items, three are karma and not courses, while seven are both karma and courses." The \*Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa\* says: "Three are courses and not karma, while seven are both karma and courses." We must now harmonize and explain them. The sūtra takes volition directly as karma; but volition does not manifest by itself, hence it is karma and not a course. The treatise explains that the three afflictions give rise to karma and are not karma \[itself\], hence it says they are courses and not karma. Each relies on one approach. The treatise masters explain four permutations: 1. Karma and not a course, as in the \*Upāsaka Sūtra\*. 2. A course and not karma, as in the treatise's explanation of the three afflictions. 3. Both karma and a course of karma, as are the seven actions \[of body and speech\]. 4. Neither karma nor a course, as are bodily and vocal forms and sounds. The Abhidharma masters also have four permutations, which differ greatly from this: 1. A course and not karma, namely greed, anger, and wrong views; they are courses because they expand volition, but their substance is not volition, so they are not karma. 2. Karma and not a course, which is volition itself; because volition creates, it is called karma, and having no further volition, it is not the course of volition. 3. Both karma and a course, namely the seven of body and speech; their substance is karma, and they also expand volition as courses. 4. Neither karma nor a course, namely the three unwholesome roots preceding volition; they can only produce volition but cannot expand volition, hence they are not courses, and furthermore are not volition, hence they are not karma. Question: According to the \*Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa\*, the three afflictions are courses and not karma; why does it now speak of "ten courses of karma"? The treatise master answers: Because the minority follows the majority, all are named courses of karma. From "The answer says" downward is the second part, the refutation. Why does it only offer a general negation? First, although the opponent has this defense, in the end it does not leave annihilation and permanence behind, and therefore it is not accepted. Second, intending to refute it all at once later on, it is therefore only briefly negated here. Furthermore, knowing that their argument has not exhausted its momentum, he simply negates it directly to draw out their subsequent defense and refute it completely all at once. The prose has two parts: first, a direct refutation; from "Furthermore" downward is a concessionary refutation. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 8.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.8.4) - [Next: 8.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.8.6) - [Up: 8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.8) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824~en-mt.8.5) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.8.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1824.8.5) · Pramāṇa