[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) › [大乘百法明門論開宗義決](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2812) › 1.26 # 大乘百法明門論開宗義決 1.26 大乘百法明門論開宗義決 1.26 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.26](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2812.1.26) 見行善惡得果皆差者。謂依世間諸靜慮故。見世施主一期壽命恒行布施。從此命終生下賤家貧窮匱乏。復見有人恒行妙行。命終之後墮諸惡趣。或行惡行反生善趣。又父母却為男女。見有男女却為父母。見如是事故作是斯惟。定無施與無妙惡行。亦無果報無父母等。今應問彼空見論者。汝許業果有後受不。若許有者。汝先所說都無妙行亦無惡行無業果報。不應道理。若言無彼後所受者。諸有造作淨不淨業。即於此生頓受一切淨不淨果。不應道理。又應問彼無父母者。凡從胎藏及從種子而生身者。彼等於此為是父母為非父母。若言是者。即汝所言無父無母不應道理。若言非者。從彼胎藏及從種子而生此身言非父母。不應道理。為父為母時即非男子。為男女時即非父母。故約現身無不定果。故此所言不應道理。 > Regarding "seeing that performing good and evil yields discordant fruits": relying on worldly dhyānas, they see that a donor in the world continuously practices giving throughout a lifetime, yet upon dying from this life is born into a low and destitute family, impoverished and in want; they also see someone continuously practicing wonderful conduct, yet after death falling into evil destinies; or someone practicing evil conduct, yet conversely born in good destinies; furthermore, parents in turn becoming sons and daughters, and seeing sons and daughters in turn becoming parents. Seeing such events, they therefore reflect: definitively there is no giving, no wonderful or evil conduct, no karmic retribution, no father, mother, and so on. Now one should ask this nihilist theorist: do you accept that karma and fruition have future experiencing or not? If you accept that they do, your previous statement that there is no wonderful conduct, no evil conduct, and no karmic retribution is unreasonable. If you say there is no future experiencing of them, then those who perform pure and impure karma would all at once experience all pure and impure fruits in this very life, which is unreasonable. Moreover, one should ask the one who says there are no parents: for all bodies born from a womb and from seeds, are those \[progenitors\] parents or not parents to this \[body\]? If you say they are, then your statement that there is no father and no mother is unreasonable. If you say they are not, saying that this body is born from that womb and from seeds, yet they are not parents, is unreasonable. When acting as father and mother, they are not sons and daughters; when acting as sons and daughters, they are not parents. Therefore, with respect to the present body, there is no indefinite fruition. Hence, what is said here is unreasonable. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.25](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2812.1.25) - [Next: 1.27](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2812.1.27) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2812.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2812~en-mt.1.26) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (2) - [瑜伽師地論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.yogacara.yogacarabhumi*zh-xuanzang.7.119) — Classical Chinese - [顯揚聖教論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.yogacara.prakaranaryavacasastra*zh-xuanzang.10.52) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2812.1.26](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2812.1.26) · Pramāṇa