[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) › [成唯識論了義燈](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832) › 2.5 # 成唯識論了義燈 2.5 成唯識論了義燈 2.5 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.2.5) 又所執我為一為異。若言異者其體應相雜。《要集》敘量云：天授真我；與祠授我體應相雜，更相遍故；如祠授我。今謂：此說理亦稍難，彼許祠授我體相雜，天授應然，有相符過。不許相雜，喻闕所立，何成比量？西明云：因云更相遍故，無有過失。天授、祠授二人我，皆有與他更遍義故，如所作性因。《集》云：有說常遍為因，必望二法方名更遍者。此亦非理，違論文故。有解：一我相似義說更遍，此亦非理。一體不可說更遍故，違道理故。《集》云：有釋為正。以天授等我，即有與他我更相遍義。如所作因，必望能作。雖不顯唯舌等緣，而所作因成。今謂不爾，何者若云：天授等我，即有與他更相遍義，即有與他相雜以不？若云：相雜相符之過，若不相雜，喻闕所立，喻即不成。本疏意云：祠授我常遍，而體是一。故立量云：天授我與祠授我，是有法，應體成一。是法以常遍故，因如祠授我，祠授我一，復是常遍。喻具二立，得成比量。此得論意，智者當信，餘皆不審。 > Furthermore, is the grasped ātman one or different? If one says it is different, their substances should intermingle. The Yaoji states the inference: 'Devadatta's true ātman should intermingle with Yajñadatta's ātman in substance; because they mutually pervade one another; like Yajñadatta's ātman.' Now we say: the reasoning in this statement is also rather difficult. If they accept that Yajñadatta's ātman intermingles in substance, then Devadatta's would be likewise, committing the fault of proving what is already accepted (siddhasādhana). If they do not accept intermingling, the example lacks the property to be proved (sādhyavikalatā); how could it constitute an inference? Ximing says: 'The reason states "because of mutually pervading one another," which is without fault. Both the ātman of Devadatta and that of Yajñadatta have the meaning of mutually pervading the other, like the reason "because of being produced" (kṛtakatvāt).' The Yaoji says: 'Some say that taking permanence and omnipresence as the reason necessarily requires looking to two phenomena before it can be called mutual pervading.' This too is illogical, because it contradicts the text of the treatise. Some explain: 'It is called mutual pervading in the sense of one ātman being similar \[to another\].' This too is illogical, because a single substance cannot be said to mutually pervade, which contradicts reason. The Yaoji says: 'A certain explanation is correct: because the ātman of Devadatta and others has the meaning of mutually pervading other ātmans. Just as the reason "being produced" necessarily depends on a maker; even without explicitly showing that it is solely conditioned by the tongue and the like, the reason "being produced" is established.' Now we say this is not so. Why? If one says: 'The ātman of Devadatta and others has the meaning of mutually pervading other ātmans,' then does it intermingle with the other or not? If one says it intermingles, there is the fault of proving what is already accepted; if it does not intermingle, the example lacks the property to be proved, and the example is not established. The intention of the primary commentary is: Yajñadatta's ātman is permanent and omnipresent, yet its substance is one. Therefore, the inference is established: 'Devadatta's ātman and Yajñadatta's ātman' is the subject (dharmin); 'should become one in substance' is the predicate (sādhya-dharma); 'because of being permanent and omnipresent' is the reason (hetu); 'like Yajñadatta's ātman' \[is the example\]. Yajñadatta's ātman is one, and furthermore permanent and omnipresent. The example is endowed with both things to be established, so it can form an inference. This grasps the intention of the treatise; the wise should believe it, while the rest are inaccurate. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.2.4) - [Next: 2.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.2.6) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832~en-mt.2.5) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.2.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.2.5) · Pramāṇa