[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) › [四明尊者教行錄](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1937) › 2.65 # 四明尊者教行錄 2.65 四明尊者教行錄 2.65 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.65](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1937.2.65) 十八問：鈔云惑性相待名消理毒者，此對惑之性為修德境耶？性德境耶？若云修境，則約所起對理自具，而為研覈成消伏義，亦但屬修約行明矣。若云性境，法性自爾，非作所成。此性對惑名消理毒者，能對性既云消義全闕，應取但中之理為能對性耶？應取清淨真如為能對性耶？ > Question 18: The Commentary says that delusion and nature being mutually relative is called eradicating theoretical poison: is this nature facing delusion the realm of cultivated virtue, or the realm of inherent virtue? If you say it is the realm of cultivation, then in terms of what arises, it is investigated against what principle naturally possesses to accomplish the sense of eradication and subduing, which is also clearly clarified merely in terms of practice belonging to cultivation. If you say it is the realm of nature, the dharmatā is naturally so and not made by action. If this nature facing delusion is called eradicating theoretical poison, since the facing nature is said to completely lack the sense of eradication, should one take the principle of mere center as the facing nature? Or should one take pure suchness as the facing nature? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.64](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1937.2.64) - [Next: 2.66](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1937.2.66) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1937.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1937~en-mt.2.65) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1937.2.65](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1937.2.65) · Pramāṇa