[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) › 7.197 # 成唯識論了義燈 7.197 成唯識論了義燈 7.197 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [7.197](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.7.197) 《論》：「此與二乘有共、不共」等，西明云：「舊云性罪，謂殺生等，拔生草等是遮罪。今依《攝論》云：『殺、盜、婬等，貪等所生，名為性罪。斷生草等，非貪等生，說名遮罪。』此意：染心斷生草等，即名性罪。」今謂：不爾。彼《攝論》意：若故殺生等，必貪等起，故是性罪。故斷生草非必貪等起，故是遮罪。又斷生草等，十業道中是何業道，染心起時得名性罪？若云由貪等是意業者，自由起貪等，何關斷草？又為貪等起殺等時，應犯身、意二處業道。又《解深密》云：十地中所起煩惱不染污相，由知而起，但為利生，不為過失。此起貪等應成性罪，何名不染污？若雖起貪等，非染污相，不犯性罪，故不得言但貪等生即為性罪。 > Regarding the treatise's statement, "This has shared and unshared aspects with the two vehicles," etc.: Ximing says: "The old masters said natural offenses refer to killing living beings and so forth, while uprooting live grass and the like are offenses of prohibition. Now, relying on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, it says: 'Killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, etc., which are generated from greed and so forth, are called natural offenses. Cutting live grass and the like, not being generated from greed and so forth, are called offenses of prohibition.' The idea here is that cutting live grass with a defiled mind is indeed called a natural offense." I now say: This is not so. The intention of that Mahāyānasaṃgraha is: intentional killing of living beings and so forth necessarily arise from greed and so on, and therefore are natural offenses. Cutting live grass does not necessarily arise from greed and so on, and therefore is an offense of prohibition. Furthermore, as for cutting live grass and the like, which course of action among the ten courses of action is it, such that when arising with a defiled mind it can be called a natural offense? If one says that being \[born\] of greed and so forth makes it mental karma, arising greed and so forth is by itself \[mental\]; what does it have to do with cutting grass? Furthermore, when killing and so forth are initiated on account of greed and so on, one would violate courses of action in both places: bodily and mental. Furthermore, the Saṃdhinirmocana says: "The defilements that arise on the ten grounds have a non-defiled mark; because they arise through awareness, purely for the benefit of sentient beings, they do not constitute faults." If one generated greed and so forth here, they would become natural offenses; how could they be called non-defiled? If, although arising from greed and so forth, they do not have a defiled mark and do not violate natural offenses, then one cannot say that simply being generated from greed and so forth makes it a natural offense. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 7.196](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.7.196) - [Next: 7.198](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.7.198) - [Up: 7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.7) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832~en-mt.7.197) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [攝大乘論釋](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.yogacara.mahayanasamgraha!upanibandhana*zh-xuanzang.7.68) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.7.197](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.7.197) · Pramāṇa