[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) › 5.17 # 成唯識論了義燈 5.17 成唯識論了義燈 5.17 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [5.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.5.17) 《解脫經》者有云：因道斷障得解脫，故名《解脫經》，《要集》云：如《天請問》等，不名《解脫經》故？今謂不爾，何經不令修道斷障？不爾，何得云：引對治故明是佛說？故前說是，然《天請問》是別名，言解脫者，是諸不入阿含者之總名，染污意恒時等者，諸部釋異。且有部云：染污意者，謂第六識。恒時者，非不斷故，名為恒時，如常施食常受樂等。俱生滅者，非謂同時名俱，生滅俱有，故名俱，即是諸或皆有生滅。若解脫者，對治道起非曾非當有者，但捨其得離緣縛故，非無體性。上坐部云：染意恒時，謂細意識，無間斷故，諸或俱生，云俱生滅，過、未無故，非曾當有。問：若細意識如受生等，恒時相續，與四或俱，云何《攝論》第二云：依染污故時無斷故，以此為難？又九心輪以有分心是受生心，唯是無記。又下會《瑜伽》云：地獄無間有異熟生，是上坐義，准此非細染意受生，應非彼釋？答：上坐部中有本末計，無覆受生是本計，細染意生是末計，經部師中亦本末計，釋經准之。 > Regarding the Vimuktisūtra, some say: "Because one severs hindrances by means of the path and attains liberation, it is called the Vimuktisūtra." The Yaoji says: "Such as the Devaparipṛcchā and so forth, because they are not named Vimuktisūtra?" Now I say this is not so. What sūtra does not enjoin cultivating the path to sever hindrances? If not so, how could it be said: "Because it adduces an antidote, it is clearly the Buddha's preaching"? Therefore, the previous explanation is correct. However, Devaparipṛcchā is a specific name, whereas "vimukti" is a general name for those not entering into the āgamas. Regarding "the defiled intention constantly..." and so forth, various schools explain it differently. First, the Sarvāstivādins say: "'Defiled intention' refers to the sixth consciousness. 'Constantly' does not mean uninterrupted, hence it is called 'constantly', just as constantly giving food or constantly experiencing pleasure, and so forth. 'Co-arising and ceasing' does not mean simultaneous; because arising and ceasing are both present, it is called 'co-', which means all delusions have arising and ceasing. As for one who is liberated, when the antidotal path arises, it is 'neither past nor future' simply because one abandons its acquisition (prāpti) and is free from the bondage of objects; it is not that it lacks essential nature." The Sthaviravādins say: "'Defiled intention constantly' refers to the subtle manovijñāna, because it is uninterrupted. Since delusions co-arise, it says 'co-arising and ceasing'. Since past and future do not exist, it is 'neither past nor future'." Question: If the subtle manovijñāna, like taking rebirth and so forth, continues constantly and is accompanied by the four delusions, why does the second chapter of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha say: "Because it is based on defilement, there is no interruption in time," using this as an objection? Furthermore, in the cycle of nine mental states, the bhavaṅgacitta is the rebirth-linking mind, which is purely indeterminate. Moreover, later, reconciling the Yogācārabhūmi, it says that in Avīci hell there is maturation-produced \[mind\], which is the Sthavira doctrine; following this, it is not a subtle defiled intention that takes rebirth, so would this not fail to be their explanation? Answer: Within the Sthaviravādin school there are fundamental and derivative doctrines: taking rebirth unhindered (anivṛta) is the fundamental doctrine, while taking rebirth with a subtle defiled intention is the derivative doctrine. Among the Sautrāntikas there are also fundamental and derivative doctrines; the explanation of the sūtra should follow this. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 5.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.5.16) - [Next: 5.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.5.18) - [Up: 5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.5) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832~en-mt.5.17) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.5.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.5.17) · Pramāṇa