[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) › 4.114 # 大乘起信論廣釋卷第三．四．五 4.114 大乘起信論廣釋卷第三．四．五 4.114 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.114](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2814.4.114) 論。對治邪執至則無邪執　釋曰。如是已明顯示正義對治邪執。於中有二。初就本總標。後別明除障。此初也。有義。邪執即是我見。謂依我見說為邪執。不爾應言。邪執有五。如何論言我見邪執我常遍會同虛空執。如來藏義同我見故。依我見說為邪執。但說所依。非體所依故。離我見無可說也。有義。邪執非即我見。謂依分別我見之上起於分別迷教邪執。不爾所說後五行相豈皆是彼人我見邪。故下五見非皆人我。而論所言我見五者。謂依初一人我見上起後四種迷教邪執故。從所依總名我由。由是新論分所結云。依人我見四種見生。是故於此安立彼四。既依我見起於邪執。故離我見執則無根斷枝亡。理恒形故。 > \[Treatise:\] Countering erroneous attachments: \[... then there are no erroneous attachments\]. > \[Commentary:\] Having explained above the revelation of the correct doctrine, it now counters erroneous attachments. Here there are two parts: first, a general formulation regarding the fundamental; second, a specific explanation of eliminating the hindrances. This is the first. One interpretation holds that erroneous attachments are identical to the view of self (\*ātmadṛṣṭi\*); that is, erroneous attachments are spoken of in reliance on the view of self. Were it not so, one should say there are five erroneous attachments; why would the treatise say the view of self is erroneous attachment, \[and explain it as\] attaching to the self as permanent, omnipresent, and conforming to empty space, because the meaning of the tathāgatagarbha is taken as identical to the view of self? Erroneous attachments are spoken of in reliance on the view of self, but this merely speaks of the basis; because it is not the substantial basis, apart from the view of self there would be nothing to speak of. Another interpretation holds that erroneous attachments are not identical to the view of self; that is, in reliance on the conceptualized view of self, there arise erroneous attachments conceptualizing and misunderstanding the teachings. Were it not so, could the subsequent five behavioral modes that are explained all be that view of personal self? Therefore the five views below are not all \[the view of\] personal self. As for the treatise speaking of five views of self: relying on the initial view of personal self, there arise the subsequent four kinds of erroneous attachments misunderstanding the teachings; therefore, from the basis, they are collectively termed 'self'. Hence, the conclusion of the new translation says: "Relying on the view of personal self, four kinds of views arise; therefore, these four are established here." Since erroneous attachments arise relying on the view of self, once the view of self is departed from, the attachments have no root, just as branches wither when the root is severed; this principle is ever apparent. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.113](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2814.4.113) - [Next: 4.115](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2814.4.115) - [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.4.114) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (2) - [大乘起信論裂網疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1850.5.31) — Classical Chinese - [大乘起信論略述](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2813.2.91) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2814.4.114](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2814.4.114) · Pramāṇa