[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) › [瑜伽師地論略纂](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1829) › 5.11 # 瑜伽師地論略纂 5.11 瑜伽師地論略纂 5.11 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [5.11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1829.5.11) 「於應作事乃至非作返作」，釋初二時悔，應作不應作，非作返作，皆通在俗，初出家故。　次除先追悔所生惡作，及生惡作差別，第二釋前出家後時所起惡作。　「除先追悔所生惡作」等者，除在俗時所起惡作。　「此惡作纏猶未能捨」者，初出家時所起惡作猶未能捨。　「次後復生憂戀惡作」者，念昔曾經戲笑等事所生起故，此又出家以後一種惡作差別。上來二種，攝前三時所有惡作。在俗惡作，其處可起，與掉舉境界可同；出家初起惡作，行相不應起故，名非處惡作。故論第三總結之，云次前所生非處惡作及出家後時所起惡作，雖與掉舉處所不等，然相相似，非但同境，惡作、憂戀與掉合立。其出家後二境不同，悔亦憂戀，故合立蓋，非掉舉體不遍染心。然行相增，此時非有，說處不等故，與《唯識》理不相違。 > "Regarding what should be done up to not doing what should be done and doing instead what should not be done": this explains the regret of the first two times, \[namely,\] what should be done, what should not be done, and not doing what should be done and doing instead what should not be done, which all apply to both secular life and the initial time of going forth. > Next, removing the regret born of prior repentance and the distinctions of born regret: this second part explains the regret arising after having gone forth. > "Removing the regret born of prior repentance" and so forth: this removes the regret arising in secular life. > "Yet still unable to relinquish this entanglement of regret": this refers to the regret arising at the initial time of going forth that one is still unable to relinquish. > "Subsequently generating again the regret of sorrow and longing": this is because it arises from recollecting past amusements, laughter, and so forth; this is yet another distinction of regret after going forth. The above two kinds subsume all the regrets of the three previous times. For secular regret, its basis may arise and can share the same sphere of objects as agitation; for the regret arising initially upon going forth, because its active aspect ought not to arise, it is called regret over an improper basis. Therefore, the third part of the treatise summarizes it, stating that the improper regret born immediately before and the regret arising after going forth, although their loci are not equal to that of agitation, their characteristics are similar; it is not merely that they share an object, but regret, sorrow, and longing are established together with agitation. The two objects after going forth are not the same, but both regret and sorrow/longing are combined into a hindrance; it is not that the entity of agitation does not pervade defiled minds. However, as the active aspect increases, it does not exist at this time; because it is said that their loci are not equal, this does not contradict the principles of \*Vijñaptimātratā\*. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 5.10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1829.5.10) - [Next: 5.12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1829.5.12) - [Up: 5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1829.5) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1829~en-mt.5.11) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [瑜伽論記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1828.4.49) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1829.5.11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1829.5.11) · Pramāṇa