[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) › [成唯識論演祕](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1833) › 5.440 # 成唯識論演祕 5.440 成唯識論演祕 5.440 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [5.440](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1833.5.440) 問：〈五十八〉云：邪見者，一切倒見皆名邪見，當知此見略有二種：除邪見，外餘四，一切皆名增益邪見。謗因及謗果等所有諸見，皆名損減。《對法》第一云：四是增益，於所知境，增益自性及差別故，即邪見外，餘之四見，一多分是損減見。一多分者，由邪分別不必損減故，一言全損，一云多分，何乃乖角？ > Question: Fascicle 58 states: 'As for wrong view, all inverted views are called wrong view. It should be known that this view is briefly of two kinds: setting aside wrong view \[proper\], all other four \[views\] are called wrong views of superimposition. All views repudiating cause and repudiating effect, etc., are called \[views of\] deprecation.' Fascicle 1 of the Abhidharmasamuccaya-bhāṣya states: 'Four are superimpositions, because they superimpose an intrinsic nature and distinctions upon the cognizable object; that is, the four views other than wrong view \[proper\]. One is mostly a view of deprecation.' 'Mostly' means that because of false conceptualization, it is not necessarily deprecation. Why does one state that it is entirely deprecation, while the other states it is mostly deprecation? How can they conflict in this way? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 5.439](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1833.5.439) - [Next: 5.441](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1833.5.441) - [Up: 5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1833.5) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1833~en-mt.5.440) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1833.5.440](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1833.5.440) · Pramāṇa