[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) › 7.59 # 成唯識論了義燈 7.59 成唯識論了義燈 7.59 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [7.59](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.7.59) 《論》：「此於無覆無記性中」等者。問：所知障中有法恚愛，法恚即嗔，云何無記？答：有二解：一云：望煩惱說，嗔唯不善；望所知障即是無記。二云：法恚亦是不善。若爾，應縛能感異熟。答：雖是不善，望義有別，不名為縛，亦不感果。二解前正，《論》說無記不通不善。 > The Treatise says: "This is within the nature of unhindered indeterminate..." Question: Within the cognitive hindrance there is aversion and craving toward dharmas; aversion toward dharmas is anger, so how can it be indeterminate? Answer: There are two explanations: One says: in contrast to the affliction \[hindrance\], anger is solely unwholesome; but in contrast to the cognitive hindrance, it is indeterminate. The second says: aversion toward dharmas is also unwholesome. If so, it should bind and be capable of karmically inducing maturation. Answer: Although it is unwholesome, viewed from this aspect it has a distinction; it is not termed a bond, nor does it karmically induce fruition. Between the two explanations, the former is correct; the Treatise says it is indeterminate and does not extend to the unwholesome. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 7.58](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.7.58) - [Next: 7.60](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.7.60) - [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.7.59) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.7.59](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.7.59) · Pramāṇa