[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) › 3.67 # 成唯識論了義燈 3.67 成唯識論了義燈 3.67 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.67](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.3.67) 《論》：三恒隨轉。西明云：世親且約染說治道。無性通約三性，名言隨所生果，恒相續轉，不說治道。今此論中，或隨同一，或雙同二故，言至究竟位，不說治道生者，名言無記，非有治道故。若說隨果轉者，非正生時，應非種子，故今但言至究竟位。今疑此釋，若言非果生時，亦名種子者，即非六義，方為種子，不假果俱故。若云名言，無治道者，自性治道，善等可無，緣縛治道，善等亦有。不爾，不應說通修斷等。故本疏正。 > The treatise: "Third: continuously following and turning." Ximing says: "Vasubandhu spoke of the path of counteraction (pratipakṣa-mārga) only in terms of defilement. Asanga/Guṇamati generalized across the three natures, stating that nominal perfuming \[seeds\] continuously and successively turn in accordance with the fruit produced, without speaking of the path of counteraction. Now in this treatise, it is either aligned with the one or aligned with both; therefore, in saying 'until the ultimate stage,' it does not speak of the arising of the path of counteraction, because nominal neutral (avyākṛta) states have no path of counteraction. If one were to say that it turns in accordance with the fruit, then when it is not actually producing a fruit, it would not be a seed; therefore, it now only says 'until the ultimate stage'." Now I doubt this explanation: if one says that even when the fruit is not being produced, it is still called a seed, then it would not be by possessing the six meanings that it constitutes a seed, for it would not rely on existing simultaneously with the fruit. If one says that nominal \[seeds\] have no path of counteraction, although an intrinsic path of counteraction might be absent in wholesome states and the like, an obstructive-bond path of counteraction (ālambana-saṃyojana-pratipakṣa) does exist in wholesome states and the like. Otherwise, one should not say that they are common to what is severed by cultivation (bhāvanāheya), etc. Therefore, the basic commentary is correct. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.66](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.3.66) - [Next: 3.68](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.3.68) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832~en-mt.3.67) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.3.67](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.3.67) · Pramāṇa