English
is my own nature. In terms of its essence, samsara is truly not peaceful, because non-virtuous things are not peaceful things. On the other hand, because it is the basis of all sufferings such as birth, it is the nature in which all sufferings arise. All sufferings are the three sufferings, and samsara is also the nature in which they arise. To give an example with diseases and unsuitable medicines, samsara is extremely unpleasant, so it should be exemplified by diseases. Attachment and so on are inherently unpleasant, so attachment and so on should be exemplified by unsuitable medicines. Those that exist in correspondence with those attachments and so on, but are not their nature, so those that exist in correspondence should be exemplified by drinks mixed with unsuitable medicines. Those that are caused by the actions of body and speech, and by birth and so on, are unpleasant because of being caused, but are not the nature and do not exist in correspondence, so they should be exemplified by milk produced from drinks mixed with unsuitable medicines. If that is the case, then "then" and so on will appear in detail, samsara is actually non-virtuous, and because it belongs to the category of samsara, all contaminated things are not even slightly labeled or will not become virtuous, only uncontaminated things will be labeled or become virtuous, would there be such a fault? In reality, it is said that way, but the intention is that, in terms of its nature, contamination itself is not labeled as good or bad. The ripening result that is pleasing is good, the one that is not pleasing is bad, and the one without ripening result is unlabeled, because the ripening result is neither happiness nor possessing happiness, and because it is a ripening result, it does not express, therefore it is unlabeled. In reality, unlabeled dependents and so on, refer to countless unlabeled things, because they are separated from the four characteristics of good and non-good. If it is said that the great elements and so on are not good or non-good, then the dependent origination of actions is also caused by a single mind.
Chinese
心和语的业，想必会转变成善与非善。作者认为，是对业用心，而不是对诸要素用心。有些人认为诸要素会起作用，但并非为了显现善与非善之心。那么，是为了什么呢？是为了进行身语的表述。如果说，善与非善是受意图支配，而不仅仅是发起，那么就会出现“等持”等等。等持是指不思量“不做表述”的状态。如果在未入等持的状态下有思量，那么，正因为如此，才说了“未入等持”等等。下地道的加行之心，不可能是引发上地道非表述的因素。如果认为，由于加行之心的作用，非表述本身就是善，那么就会出现天眼和天耳等等，因为在加行的时候，它们是有思量的。必须努力于此，意思是说，虽然承认这里会出现这个过失，但为了回答这个问题，必须努力。其他人回答说，身语的业从未被认为是没有心的。因此，由心所支配而产生的善等性质，是依赖于心的。诸要素并非如此，因为它们即使没有心也会产生。因此，它们不像眼睛等一样，不会因心的作用而区分善等。如果是这样，那么出生等等，以及获得等等，也不会因为发起而变成善，因为它们不会为了这些目的而运作，而且也会发生在无心者身上。对此的回答是，出生等等，以及获得等等，本身并不是善等，那么是什么呢？是依法的力量而安立为善等。而四大要素本身并没有被教导，这有什么可比性呢？如果是这样，那么天眼和天耳本身也不是善。
English
It is thought that actions of body and speech turn into virtue and non-virtue. The author thinks that it is the mind that is applied to the action, not to the elements. Some think that the elements will act, but not to manifest the mind of virtue and non-virtue. Then, what is it for? It is for the expression of body and speech. If it is said that virtue and non-virtue are governed by intention, and not just by initiation, then "absorption" and so on will appear. Absorption means not thinking of "not making expression". If there is thinking in the state of not entering absorption, then, precisely because of this, it is said "not entering absorption" and so on. The mind of the lower ground's application cannot be the factor that initiates the non-expression of the upper ground. If it is thought that, due to the action of the mind of application, non-expression itself is virtue, then the divine eye and ear etc. will appear, because they have thought at the time of application. It is necessary to strive for this, meaning that although it is admitted that this fault will appear here, it is necessary to strive to answer this question. Others answer that the actions of body and speech have never been considered without mind. Therefore, the nature of virtue etc. that arises under the control of the mind depends on the mind. The elements are not like that, because they arise even without mind. Therefore, they are not distinguished as virtue etc. by the action of the mind, like the eyes etc. If this is the case, then birth etc., and acquisition etc., will not become virtue because of initiation, because they do not operate for these purposes, and they also occur in the mindless. The answer to this is that birth etc., and acquisition etc., are not themselves virtue etc. Then what are they? They are established as virtue etc. by the power of Dharma. And the great elements themselves have not been taught, what comparison is there? If this is the case, then the divine eye and ear themselves are not virtue.
Chinese
因为与解脱道同时产生，并且那也是没有预示的缘故。那些的结合也是声音和显现作意，因为那些结合的支配不是善，这样说。邪见从那之后就广为流传，以邪见所见而应断除的是，身语的表相本质，以颠倒的洁净和业的边际二者而发起，这样说来，仅仅以修所断才能发起表相，以见所断则不是，这样所说就与此相违背了。因和那时发起者等，以此发起，所以是发起者。因本身就是发起者，所以是发起者，因也是它，发起者也是它，所以是因的发起者。行为的时候就是那时，那时发起。因为仅仅在那时它存在，所以说了“仅仅在那时”。“是投射者之故”的意思是，是产生者之故，因为恒常存在于产生一切的因本身中。“在行为的时候相顺而进入之故”的意思是，在刹那刹那生起的时候，利益它之故。如果那时的发起者不是产生者，那么，表相的行为，那时发起者的能力是什么？即使已经投射，如果没有它，就像死了一样，不会存在，这是说，即使因的发起者已经产生。例如，某人心中想去村庄，如果行为已经投射，但如果中断，就不能跟随它，所以不会去，这和它相似。那么，在“无心”等中，如果那时的发起者不存在，就像死了一样，不会存在，那么在受具足戒的时候，向僧众祈求比丘的实物，进入灭尽定，进入灭尽定的身体的表相，语言的表相，先前投射的是业。
English
Because it arises simultaneously with the path of liberation, and also because that is not indicated. The combination of those is also sound and appearance, because the dominance of those combinations is not good, so it is said. From that, wrong view is widely spread, what should be abandoned by seeing wrong view is, the nature of the appearance of body and speech, initiated by the two extremes of inverted purity and karma, so it is said, only what is abandoned by cultivation can initiate appearance, not what is abandoned by seeing, what is said like that contradicts this. The cause and the initiator of that time, etc., by this initiates, so it is the initiator. The cause itself is the initiator, so it is the initiator, the cause is also it, and the initiator is also it, so it is the initiator of the cause. The time of action is that time, initiating at that time. Because it exists only at that time, so it is said "only at that time." "Because it is the projector" means, because it is the producer, because it always exists in the cause itself that produces everything. "Because it enters in accordance at the time of action" means, at the time of arising moment by moment, it benefits it. If the initiator of that time is not the producer, then, the action of appearance, what is the power of the initiator of that time? Even if it has been projected, if it does not exist, like being dead, it will not exist, this is to say, even if the initiator of the cause has produced it. For example, someone thinks of going to a village, if the action has been projected, but if it is interrupted, one cannot follow it, so one will not go, this is similar to it. Then, in "without mind" etc., if the initiator of that time does not exist, like being dead, it will not exist, then at the time of full ordination, requesting the object of a monk from the Sangha, entering the cessation samadhi, the appearance of the body entering the cessation samadhi, the appearance of speech, what was previously projected is karma.
Chinese
如果于有部的最后时分生起律仪时，在那时没有发起，会如何产生呢？那么就说了“因为与心相应者最为明了”。如果这样做，那么阿罗汉也会有别解脱律仪了。 “见所断之识”： 见所断是唯有能令趣入，但并非唯有见所断才能令趣入。 如何能令趣入呢？因此广说了“彼能发起”，但并非见所断。 什么呢？见所断的心，以及身语的发起，是分别和伺察之所依，所以称为发起，但实际上并非如此，这是为了显示。 为了随行之故。 什么呢？没有见所断的心。 为什么呢？因为在面向外境的行事之时，它是不存在的，因为没有见所断的能令趣入。 如果随行者存在于面向外境的心中，那么见所断的心总是面向内，为了趣入，怎么会是行事之时呢？因此不是随行者。 “由彼发起”等等，是指就彼时之地的发起而说的，并非指因的发起。 如何呢？如果见所断也是随行者，那么因此见所断的随行者所发起的身体的表色，也应是见所断，但这是不希望的，因此见所断没有随行。 “会变成什么”是指，如果色变成见所断，会有什么过失？会损害法相，因为法相中说：“非烦恼非见断，非色六非熟生。”因此作了如是开示。 道理也已阐述。
English
If, at the final moment of the Sautrāntika school, vows arise, how can they arise without any motivation at that time? Then it is said, "Because it is most clear with the mind." If this were the case, then even an Arhat would have the Prātimokṣa vows. "The consciousness to be abandoned by seeing": That which is to be abandoned by seeing is only that which causes entry, but it is not only that which is to be abandoned by seeing that causes entry. How does it cause entry? Therefore, it is extensively stated, "That which motivates," but it is not that which is to be abandoned by seeing. What is it? The mind to be abandoned by seeing, and the motivation of body and speech, are the basis of conception and discernment, therefore it is called motivation, but in reality it is not, this is to show. It is for the sake of following. What is it? There is no mind to be abandoned by seeing. Why? Because it does not exist at the time of outward-facing action, because there is no cause for entry to be abandoned by seeing. If the follower exists in the outward-facing mind, then the mind to be abandoned by seeing always faces inward, and how could it be the time of action for entry? Therefore, it is not a follower. "Motivated by that," etc., is said in terms of the motivation of the place at that time, not the motivation of the cause. How is it? If that which is to be abandoned by seeing is also a follower, then therefore the form of the body's manifestation motivated by the follower of that which is to be abandoned by seeing should also be that which is to be abandoned by seeing, but this is not desired, therefore that which is to be abandoned by seeing has no follower. "What would happen" means, if form were to become that which is to be abandoned by seeing, what fault would there be? It would harm the Dharma, because in the Dharma it is said, "Not afflicted, not to be abandoned by seeing, not form, six not ripened." Therefore, such an explanation has been given. The reasoning has also been explained.