[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) › [宗鏡錄](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016) › 68.17 # 宗鏡錄 68.17 宗鏡錄 68.17 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [68.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.68.17) 答。識論云。且身表色。若是實有。以何為性。若言是形。便非實有。可分析故。長等極微不可得故。若言是動。亦非實有。纔生即滅。無動義故。有為法滅。不待因故。滅若待因。應非滅故。若言有色。非顯非形。心所引生。能動手等。名身表業。理亦不然。此若是動。義如前破。若是動因。應即風界。風無表示。不應名表。故身表業。定非實有。然心為因。令識所變手等色相。生滅相續。轉趣餘方。似有動作。表示心故。假名身表。語表亦非實有聲性。一剎那聲。無詮表故。多念相續。便非實故。外有對色。前已破故。然因心故。識變似聲。生滅相續。似有表示。假名語表。於理無違。表既實無。無表寧實。然依思願善惡分限。假立無表。理亦無違。 > Answer: The Vijñaptimātratāsiddhiśāstra says: 'First, if bodily manifest form were truly existent, what would be its nature? If it is said to be shape, then it is not truly existent, because it can be analyzed and because minute atoms of length, etc., cannot be found. If it is said to be motion, it is also not truly existent, because it perishes as soon as it arises and has no meaning of motion; for conditioned dharmas perish without depending on a cause, and if perishing depended on a cause, it should not be perishing. If it is said that there is a form, neither visible color nor shape, induced by the mind, which can move the hands, etc., called the karma of bodily manifestation, this is also not reasonable. If this were motion, its meaning has been refuted as before; if it were the cause of motion, it should just be the wind element, and since wind has no indication, it should not be called manifestation. Therefore, the karma of bodily manifestation is definitely not truly existent. However, with the mind as cause, it makes the form characteristics of hands, etc., transformed by consciousness, continue in arising and perishing and shift toward other directions, resembling movement; because it indicates the mind, it is conventionally termed bodily manifestation. Vocal manifestation is also not real sound by nature, because a single instant of sound has no expressive indication, and a continuity of many moments is not real; furthermore, external resistant form has already been refuted above. However, due to the mind, consciousness transforms to resemble sound, continuing in arising and perishing, resembling an indication; conventionally terming it vocal manifestation does not conflict with reason. Since manifestation is really non-existent, how could unmanifest \[form\] be real? Yet conventionally establishing unmanifest \[form\] on the basis of the limits of good and evil of intention and resolve also does not conflict with reason.' > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 68.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.68.16) - [Next: 68.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.68.18) - [Up: 68](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.68) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.68.17) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.68.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.68.17) · Pramāṇa