[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) › [成唯識論述記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830) › 1.227 # 成唯識論述記 1.227 成唯識論述記 1.227 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.227](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.1.227) 述曰：此破衛世，我作者也。此師之我雖亦受者，對彼僧佉但破作者。不爾，前文兼破亦得。若立量云：汝所執我，應無動轉；許常遍故；如虛空等。即有相符極成之失。勝論之我無動轉故，不爾，便與《十句論》違。彼說我實，無動作故，由此應言：汝所執我，應不隨身能造諸業；許常故，許遍故；說喻如前文云：汝我應不隨身能造諸業；無動轉故；如虛空等。此釋即順《十句論》我無動作也。今隨文，便於因之上置其「應」字，下皆准知。此文但有其法，而無同喻及與有法，以同前故，不別出之。其「應」之字於法中置，文准前解。此中總有三比量因。 > The Commentary states: This refutes the Vaiśeṣika claim that the self is an agent. Although this master's self is also an experiencer, as contrasted with the Sāṃkhya, \[the text\] only refutes it as an agent; otherwise, the previous text could also concurrently refute it. If one were to formulate the syllogism: "The self posited by you should be motionless; because you admit it to be eternal and all-pervading; like empty space and the like," there would be the fault of proving what is already established (siddhasādhana). For the self of the Vaiśeṣika is already motionless; otherwise, it would contradict the Daśapadārthī-śāstra. That treatise states that the substance of the self has no motion; therefore, one should say: "The self posited by you should not, in accordance with the body, be capable of creating various kinds of karma; because you admit it to be eternal, and because you admit it to be all-pervading; the example is stated as before." As the text says: "Your self should not, in accordance with the body, be capable of creating various kinds of karma; because it is motionless; like empty space and the like." This explanation accords with the Daśapadārthī's statement that the self has no motion. Now, following the convenience of the text, the word "should" is placed above the reason; below, all should be understood by analogy to this. This text only contains the predicate, without the homologous example (sādharmya-dṛṣṭānta) and the subject, because, being identical to the preceding, they are not separately presented. The word "should" is placed within the predicate, and the text is to be interpreted by analogy to the preceding. Here there are three inferential reasons in total. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.226](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.1.226) - [Next: 1.228](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.1.228) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830~en-mt.1.227) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.1.227](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.1.227) · Pramāṇa