[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) › [瑜伽論記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1828) › 5.332 # 瑜伽論記 5.332 瑜伽論記 5.332 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [5.332](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1828.5.332) 此顯不取微細多我，便能對治等者，景云：謂了知唯十二有支蘊界處流轉法，不執真實多我，故除宰主等執。基云：說諸蘊等多微細法，便能對治宰主等執，不依一身執有微細多實我故。成唯識云：我應如蘊非常一故，此若無者：云何建立內外成就等者，次下有六云何，皆乘前起後問，此意問言：我若無者，云何立內外；第二問云：若一切空，云何得有能觀空者，所觀空境；第三問言：能所觀皆空，云何得有凡聖差別。景又加解亦可破彼聖者犢子部計有我性及破異生計我並是顛倒；第四問云：凡聖若無，云何得有能教所化，彼此差別；第五問云：若無能教所化，云何得有染者、淨者，此中初答法假非真，次答人法非實，後三唯答我無常；六問答法無實用，如其次第宰主作者、俱無所有者，謂無任持，無主宰也、無驅役者、無作者也。 > Regarding 'This reveals that by not apprehending subtle, manifold selves, one is able to counter, etc.': Jing says this means knowing only the transmigratory phenomena of the twelve links of existence, aggregates, realms, and bases, and not clinging to real manifold selves, thus removing clingings to a master, etc. Ji says: Stating that the aggregates and so forth are manifold, subtle phenomena counters clingings to a master, etc., because one does not cling to manifold, real, subtle selves in reliance on a single body. The Cheng weishi lun says: 'A self should be like the aggregates: neither permanent nor single.' Regarding 'If this is non-existent, how to establish internal and external accomplishment, etc.': below there are six 'how' questions, all following what precedes to introduce what follows. This means to ask: 'If there is no self, how are internal and external established?' The second question asks: 'If all is empty, how can there be a contemplator of emptiness and an object contemplated as empty?' The third question asks: 'If both contemplator and contemplated are empty, how can there be the distinction between ordinary beings and noble ones?' Jing adds another explanation: it can also refute the noble Vātsīputrīyas who posit an essential self, and refute worldlings' conceiving of a self, both being inverted. The fourth question asks: 'If there are no ordinary beings and noble ones, how can there be teaching and being taught, the distinction between one and another?' The fifth question asks: 'If there is neither teacher nor taught, how can there be defiled and pure ones?' Here, the first answers that phenomena are conventional and not real; the second answers that persons and phenomena are not real; the latter three solely answer that the self is impermanent; the six questions and answers show that phenomena have no real activity. Regarding 'in their order, master and agent are both non-existent': this means there is no sustainer and no sovereign—namely, no driver and no agent. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 5.331](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1828.5.331) - [Next: 5.333](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1828.5.333) - [Up: 5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1828.5) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1828~en-mt.5.332) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [瑜伽師地論略纂](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1829.7.16) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1828.5.332](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1828.5.332) · Pramāṇa