Chinese
答曰：“以能与作事作因、与作果事作因。此明何义？处处亦有因中说果、果中说因，如如来经中说，可见可触名无作色，以作不可见不可触而作，名为可见可触。以彼不作说名可见可触，如是彼处若身所依身事刀杖等杀生，名为作不作，得名身业。又如自在人口敕令杀仙人，瞋心欲杀众生；受敕使者依自在人口敕而杀信仙夜叉，依仙瞋心而杀众生。彼自在人及仙人等作杀生因，使人夜叉身业成时，彼自在人及以仙人俱得成就不作身业。又如受戒人，临受戒时身动口说，及受戒时默然而住身口不动，师羯磨已，彼人成就无作身业，此亦如是。又如口业事，而口不言但动头眴目奋眉举手如是等相表前事者，亦得成就不作口业。又应身作业，而身不动口说种种身业方便，彼事成时亦得成就不作身业。 “有人言：口意亦得成就杀生，此杀生业是口意业非是身业。虽有此言，是义不然。何以故？若即口说心念之时成杀生者，可是口业？可是意业？此明何义？若口与意是杀业体，自在人敕杀某众生，仙人心念杀某众生，即敕念时彼命应断，而此事不然。以彼使人信仙夜叉身业成时成杀生事。若不如是，彼自在人口言杀时，及彼仙人起瞋心时应即成杀，而实不成。又复有过，彼自在人口敕杀生，使人未杀，彼自 现代汉语译本 回答说：‘以能够与作为事业的因，与作为结果的事业的因。’这说明什么意义呢？处处也有在因中说果、果中说因的情况，比如如来经中说，‘可见可触’名为‘无作色’，因为‘作’是不可见不可触的，而‘作’名为‘可见可触’。因为那‘不作’，所以说名为‘可见可触’，就像那样，如果身体所依仗的身体、刀杖等杀生，名为‘作不作’，得到‘身业’的名称。又如自在天人口头命令杀仙人，仙人内心想要杀众生；接受命令的使者依照自在天人的口头命令而杀信仙夜叉，依照仙人的嗔恨心而杀众生。那自在天人和仙人等作为杀生的因，使人、夜叉的身业成就时，那自在天人和仙人都得以成就‘不作身业’。又如受戒的人，临近受戒时身体动口说话，以及受戒时默默地住身口不动，师父羯磨完毕，那人成就‘无作身业’，这（口业）也是如此。又如口业的事，而口不说话，只是动头、眨眼、扬眉、举手，像这样等相来表达之前的事，也得以成就‘不作口业’。又应该身体作业，而身体不动口说种种身业的方便，那事成就时也得以成就‘不作身业’。 有人说：口意也能成就杀生，这杀生业是口意业，不是身业。虽然有这种说法，但这个道理是不对的。为什么呢？如果就在口说心念的时候成就杀生，那可以说是口业吗？可以说是意业吗？这说明什么意义呢？如果口和意是杀业的本体，自在天人命令杀某个众生，仙人心念要杀某个众生，就在命令和心念的时候，那众生的命就应该断了，但这件事不是这样的。因为那使人、信仙、夜叉的身业成就时才成就杀生之事。如果不是这样，那自在天人口说杀的时候，以及那仙人升起嗔恨心的时候就应该立即成就杀生，但实际上并没有成就。又还有过失，那自在天人口头命令杀生，使者还没杀，他自己...
English
English version He answered: 'It is based on being able to be the cause of actions, and the cause of actions that result in consequences.' What does this clarify? Everywhere there are instances of speaking of the result within the cause, and the cause within the result, such as in the Sutras of the Tathagata (如来): 'Visible and tangible' is named 'non-active form (无作色),' because 'action' is invisible and intangible, and 'action' is named 'visible and tangible.' Because of that 'non-action,' it is named 'visible and tangible,' just as in that case, if the body relies on the body, knives, staves, etc., to kill, it is named 'acting non-action,' and obtains the name 'body karma (身业).' Furthermore, like a lord (自在人) verbally ordering the killing of a hermit (仙人), and a hermit mentally desiring to kill beings; the messenger who receives the order, relying on the lord's verbal order, kills the faithful Yaksha (夜叉), and relying on the hermit's anger, kills beings. That lord and the hermit, etc., act as the cause of killing, and when the body karma of the messenger and Yaksha is accomplished, that lord and the hermit both attain the accomplishment of 'non-active body karma.' Furthermore, like a person receiving precepts (受戒), near the time of receiving precepts, the body moves and the mouth speaks, and during the time of receiving precepts, he remains silent and the body and mouth do not move, and after the teacher completes the Karma (羯磨), that person accomplishes 'non-active body karma,' this (verbal karma) is also like that. Furthermore, like a matter of verbal karma, where the mouth does not speak but only moves the head, winks, raises eyebrows, raises hands, and such like expressions to indicate the previous matter, one can also accomplish 'non-active verbal karma.' Furthermore, one should perform body actions, but the body does not move and the mouth speaks of various means of body actions, and when that matter is accomplished, one can also accomplish 'non-active body karma.' Someone says: 'The mouth and mind can also accomplish killing, this killing karma is mouth and mind karma, not body karma.' Although there is this saying, this reasoning is not correct. Why? If killing is accomplished at the very moment of speaking and thinking, can it be said to be mouth karma? Can it be said to be mind karma? What does this clarify? If the mouth and mind are the substance of killing karma, and the lord orders the killing of a certain being, and the hermit mentally intends to kill a certain being, then at the very moment of ordering and intending, that being's life should be cut off, but this is not the case. Because the killing is accomplished when the body karma of the messenger, the faithful Yaksha, is accomplished. If it were not so, then at the moment the lord speaks of killing, and at the moment the hermit arises with anger, killing should be immediately accomplished, but in reality it is not accomplished. Furthermore, there is also a fault, that the lord verbally orders killing, and the messenger has not yet killed, he himself... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
在人得证见道，受敕使者后方杀生。若口敕杀已成杀者，证见道已然后杀生。而此义不然，以得远离彼杀生因破戒等恶心，是故不以口意二业为杀生体。何以故？以业无差别故。此明何义？以善、不善、无记等业相各异故。以无差别相，如是身口意业则无差别，而远近方便身口意等成杀生业，此则不遮。” 问曰：“口言杀者，为毕竟成、为不成耶？” 答曰：“不成。何以故？以过时等故。此明何义？以何等时、以何等方便、以何等处？彼人杀时过自在人说时处等，杀者得罪，教者无罪。身业者，依身作业名为身业。此明何义？依身作业，随身所作名为身业。” 问曰：“无命可杀，云何断命得杀生罪？” 答曰：“虽无实命，断和合体名为杀生，如断树林灭灯炷等，若有神我神我是常，无杀生义。” 问曰：“害何等阴名之为杀？为害过去、为害未来、为害现在？若害过去过去已灭，若害未来未来未到，若害现在刹那不住。” 答曰：“有人说言：住现在世，坏未来世，和合阴体。复有人言：坏未来、现在。此明何义？以现在阴中刀杖能到能作害事。复有人言：五阴自灭非因缘灭。复有人言：现在阴中唯坏色阴，以刀杖等能割能触，余四阴者不可割触故。复有人言：杀害五 现代汉语译本 在人证悟见道，接受使者的命令后才杀生。如果口头命令杀已经完成的杀戮，那么证悟见道后才杀生。但这种说法是不对的，因为（证悟者）已经远离了杀生的因，破戒等恶念，因此不以口业和意业作为杀生的本体。为什么呢？因为业没有差别。这说明什么呢？因为善业、不善业、无记业等业相各自不同。如果（业）没有差别相，那么身、口、意业就没有差别，而远距离或近距离的方便，以及身、口、意等促成杀生业，这种情况是不能否认的。 问：‘口头说要杀，是最终会完成，还是不会完成呢？’ 答：‘不会完成。为什么呢？因为时间已经过去等等原因。’这说明什么呢？在什么时间、用什么方法、在什么地方？当那个人杀的时候，已经过了自在人说话的时间和地点等，杀人者有罪，教唆者无罪。身业，依靠身体的动作称为身业。这说明什么呢？依靠身体的动作，随着身体所做的称为身业。 问：‘没有命可以杀，如何断命而得到杀生罪呢？’ 答：‘虽然没有真实的命，断绝和合的身体就称为杀生，如同砍断树林、熄灭灯炷等。如果存在神我（Atman，灵魂），神我是常住不变的，就没有杀生的意义。’ 问：‘伤害哪一种阴（Skandha，五蕴）称为杀生呢？是伤害过去阴、还是伤害未来阴、还是伤害现在阴？如果伤害过去阴，过去阴已经灭亡；如果伤害未来阴，未来阴尚未到来；如果伤害现在阴，现在阴刹那不住。’ 答：‘有人说：住在现在世，破坏未来世，和合的阴体。又有人说：破坏未来阴和现在阴。’这说明什么呢？因为在现在阴中，刀杖能够到达，能够造成伤害。又有人说：五阴是自己灭亡，不是因缘灭亡。又有人说：现在阴中只破坏色阴（Rupa Skandha，色蕴），因为刀杖等能够割断和触碰，其余四阴（受、想、行、识）是不能够割断和触碰的。又有人说：杀害五阴。
English
English version After a person attains enlightenment and receives the order from an emissary, then killing occurs. If the oral command is to kill what has already been killed, then killing occurs after enlightenment. But this meaning is not so, because (the enlightened one) has distanced themselves from the cause of killing, breaking precepts, and other evil thoughts. Therefore, oral and mental actions are not considered the substance of killing. Why? Because there is no difference in karma. What does this clarify? Because the characteristics of good, unwholesome, and neutral karma are each different. If there is no difference in characteristics, then there is no difference between bodily, verbal, and mental actions. However, distant or near means, and bodily, verbal, and mental actions that lead to killing, this cannot be denied. Question: 'If one speaks of killing, is it ultimately accomplished or not?' Answer: 'It is not accomplished. Why? Because of the passage of time, etc.' What does this clarify? At what time, by what means, in what place? When that person kills, it has already passed the time and place of the free person's speech, etc. The killer is guilty, the instigator is not guilty. Bodily action is called bodily action because it relies on the body's actions. What does this clarify? Relying on the body's actions, following what the body does is called bodily action. Question: 'If there is no life to kill, how can one sever life and incur the sin of killing?' Answer: 'Although there is no real life, severing the combined body is called killing, like cutting down a forest, extinguishing a lamp, etc. If there is an Atman (神我, soul), and the Atman is permanent, there is no meaning to killing.' Question: 'Which Skandha (阴, aggregate) is harmed when it is called killing? Is it harming the past Skandha, the future Skandha, or the present Skandha? If harming the past Skandha, the past Skandha has already perished; if harming the future Skandha, the future Skandha has not yet arrived; if harming the present Skandha, the present Skandha does not abide for an instant.' Answer: 'Some say: dwelling in the present world, destroying the future world, the combined Skandha body. Others say: destroying the future and present Skandhas.' What does this clarify? Because in the present Skandha, knives and sticks can reach and cause harm. Others say: the five Skandhas perish by themselves, not by causal conditions. Others say: in the present Skandha, only the Rupa Skandha (色蕴, form aggregate) is destroyed, because knives and sticks can cut and touch it, the other four Skandhas (feeling, perception, volition, consciousness) cannot be cut and touched. Others say: killing the five Skandhas. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
阴，自余四阴虽不可触而依色阴住，色阴坏故彼亦随坏，如破瓶故水乳亦失。复有人言：唯害无记阴，以无记阴中刀杖能触，以无触阴有其二种、一切业有三种，如向所说应知。” 问曰：“如来修多罗中说有二种业：一者、起业；二者、作业。此二种业广说有三，谓身口意业。此三种业云何差别？为从依说、为从体说、为从起说？若从依说，即是一业，以一切业依止身故。若从体说，即是一业，以一切业唯口业故。若从起说，即是一业，以一切业从心起故。” 答曰：“依三次第有三种业。此明何义？由心思惟即是心业，依彼心业起身口业。以依心故起身口业，如是次第应知，彼作无作应知，彼身口业差别应知。又身业作者依身威仪，依止身作彼彼形相，是名身作业。” 问曰：“以身去来动转名为身业，不去不来不名为业？” 答曰：“若言去来是身业者，此事不然。何以故？一切有为法刹那不住故。刹那不住者随何处灭？不去不来。云何而言去来动转名为身业。” 问曰：“此义不然。何以故？若一切法刹那不住，可如是说，亦见有法刹那间住非是不住，云何而言无去无来？” 答曰：“此义不然。何以故？以有为法毕竟不住。此明何义？以彼一切有为诸法，无因无缘自 现代汉语译本： ‘阴’（Skandha，蕴）的概念中，除了色阴（Rupa-skandha，物质蕴）之外，其余四阴（受、想、行、识）虽然不可直接触及，但它们都依赖于色阴而存在。如果色阴毁坏，那么其余四阴也会随之毁坏，就像瓶子破了，里面的水和牛奶也会流失一样。还有人说：只会损害无记阴（不善不恶的蕴），因为在无记阴中，刀杖可以触及。由于不可触及的阴有两种，一切业有三种，如前面所说的那样，应该了解。’ 问：‘如来（Tathagata，佛）的修多罗（Sutra，经）中说有两种业：一是起业（起始的业），二是作业（实际的业）。这两种业广义上可以分为三种，即身业、口业、意业。这三种业有什么区别？是从所依赖的事物来说，还是从本体来说，还是从生起的原因来说？如果从所依赖的事物来说，那么就是一种业，因为一切业都依赖于身体。如果从本体来说，那么就是一种业，因为一切业都只是口业。如果从生起的原因来说，那么就是一种业，因为一切业都从心意生起。’ 答：‘依据这三种次第，有三种业。这说明了什么？由心思考就是意业，依靠意业而产生身业和口业。因为依靠心意而产生身业和口业，应该了解这样的次第。应该了解彼作（已作之业）和无作（未作之业），应该了解身业和口业的区别。此外，身业的作者依赖于身体的威仪，依靠身体做出各种各样的形相，这叫做身作业。’ 问：‘以身体的去来动转称为身业，不去不来不称为业吗？’ 答：‘如果说去来是身业，那么这种说法是不对的。为什么呢？因为一切有为法（Samskrta，因缘和合而成的事物）刹那（Ksana，极短的时间单位）不住留。刹那不住留的事物在哪里灭亡呢？不去不来。怎么能说去来动转称为身业呢？’ 问：‘这种说法不对。为什么呢？如果一切法刹那不住留，可以这样说，但也看到有法在刹那间住留而不是不住留，怎么能说没有去来呢？’ 答：‘这种说法不对。为什么呢？因为有为法毕竟不住留。这说明了什么？因为一切有为诸法，没有原因没有条件自己…’