[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) › 5.236 # 成唯識論了義燈 5.236 成唯識論了義燈 5.236 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [5.236](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.5.236) 《論》：即能引發無想定思。《要集》云：有說、有釋各有三解。彼第三為此初說，彼第一為此第三說，彼此第二義即不同。今取有釋第三為正　既有說第一即有釋第三，何故獨取有釋第三而為正釋？有說《疏》文不斷第三為正說故。然以理准非，極厭心招彼總報，極厭心種招彼別報，何所相違？又微微心種，是能引發無想定思，能感彼果順五十六。不爾一因如何能感有無心別相違二果？又西明云：微微心及微心相應思引總報，以有心故，即彼二種至無心位引別報，以無心故。今謂不爾，豈於微心種亦立無心定耶？ > The treatise says: "Namely, the volition that can induce the absorption of non-conception." The Yaoji says: "Some say" and "some explain" each have three interpretations. Their third is this first explanation; their first is this third explanation; and their respective second meanings are not the same. Now we take the third of "some explain" as correct. Since the first of "some say" is identical to the third of "some explain," why take solely the third of "some explain" as the correct explanation? Because the text of the commentary of "some say" did not settle on the third as the correct explanation. However, judging by reason, it is not so: that the mind of extreme revulsion attracts that general retribution, while the seeds of the mind of extreme revulsion attract that distinct retribution—what contradiction is there? Furthermore, the seeds of the extremely subtle mind are the volition that can induce the absorption of non-conception and can bring about that result, which accords with \[Yogācārabhūmi\] chapter fifty-six. Otherwise, how could a single cause bring about two distinct, contradictory results: with mind and without mind? Furthermore, Ximing says: The volition associated with the extremely subtle mind and subtle mind induces the general retribution because mind is present; those very two kinds of seeds, upon reaching the state of mindlessness, induce the distinct retribution because it is mindless. Now I say this is not so: could one establish the absorption of mindlessness even on the seeds of a subtle mind? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 5.235](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.5.235) - [Next: 5.237](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.5.237) - [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.5.236) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.5.236](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.5.236) · Pramāṇa