[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) › [大乘起信論廣釋卷第三．四．五](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2814) › 4.109 # 大乘起信論廣釋卷第三．四．五 4.109 大乘起信論廣釋卷第三．四．五 4.109 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.109](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2814.4.109) 論。六塵境界畢竟無念　釋曰。次下別明推色心觀。於中有二。先觀色法。後觀心法。此初也。境從心起畢竟無體。離心之解無別念相。寧知諸色離心無體。謂以惠擇分析諸色。乃至極微離心無故。故新論云。分段麁色微至極微。復以方分析此微塵。是故若麁若細一切諸色唯是妄心分別影像。實無所有。若爾何言六塵境耶。答。雖一色言即有二種。一者有對極微所成。二者無對非極微成。其五塵境屬有對色。其法塵境攝無對色。故但言色攝六塵也。顯攝周盡故言　塵。以法處不可析故。是故論中但言無念。新論分析約色。有對色廣略雖異。皆顯色也。或此則是譯者忤耳。 > \[Treatise:\] The objective spheres of the six sense objects are ultimately free of thought. > \[Commentary:\] Next, it explains specifically the contemplation examining form and mind. Here there are two parts: first, contemplating material dharmas; second, contemplating mental dharmas. This is the first. Objective spheres arise from the mind and are ultimately devoid of substantial entity. Apart from the understanding of the mind, there are no separate marks of thought. How is it known that the various forms lack substantial entity apart from the mind? It is through the discernment of wisdom analyzing the various forms down to subtle particles, because apart from the mind they do not exist. Therefore the new translation of the treatise says: "Gross form in physical divisions is reduced down to the subtlest particle; furthermore, using spatial directions, this subtle particle is analyzed. Therefore, whether gross or subtle, all forms are merely reflections constructed by the conceptualizing erroneous mind; they have no real existence." If so, why speak of the 'spheres of the six sense objects'? Answer: Although the single word 'form' is used, it has two kinds: first, that possessing resistance, composed of subtle particles; second, that lacking resistance, not composed of subtle particles. The spheres of the five sense objects belong to form with resistance; the sphere of the mental-object sense realm subsumes form without resistance. Therefore, merely speaking of 'form' subsumes all six sense objects. To show that the subsumption is exhaustive, it says 'sense objects'. Because the locus of mental objects cannot be split up, the treatise simply says 'free of thought'. The analysis in the new translation is in terms of form; although form with resistance is treated in extensive and abbreviated ways differently, both reveal form. Or, perhaps this was simply a discordance on the part of the translator. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.108](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2814.4.108) - [Next: 4.110](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2814.4.110) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2814.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2814~en-mt.4.109) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (3) - [大乘起信論裂網疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1850.4.99) — Classical Chinese - [大乘起信論略述](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2813.2.86) — Classical Chinese - [大乘起信論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.yogacara.mahayanasraddhotpadasastra*zh-siksananda.1.28) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2814.4.109](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2814.4.109) · Pramāṇa