English
English version ‘Not doing aspect’; seventh, ‘No doing aspect’. These are called evil speech karma. ‘Relying on unwholesome intention’ refers to speaking evil words that cause suffering to the listener. ‘Arising disturbing mind’ refers to only arising a disturbing mind, not a peaceful mind; if it is for the sake of pacifying others, even if evil words are spoken, there is no offense of disturbance. ‘Relying on a disturbed mind’ refers to arising such a mind: hoping that others will be disturbed when they hear it, and speaking with the evil intention of not wanting others to be undisturbed. ‘Doing aspect’, ‘Not doing aspect’, ‘No doing aspect’ are as described in the previous section on killing. ‘Abstaining from frivolous speech’ refers to seven types of frivolous speech: first, ‘Relying on unwholesome intention’; second, ‘Meaningless’; third, ‘Untimely’; fourth, ‘Associated with evil dharmas’; fifth, ‘Doing’; sixth, ‘Not doing aspect’; seventh, ‘No doing aspect’. Pervading all evil speech, these are called frivolous speech karma. ‘Relying on unwholesome intention’ refers to speaking words that are associated with the afflictions of cultivating the path in the desire realm, which are called frivolous speech. ‘Meaningless’ refers to being devoid of real meaning. ‘Untimely’ refers to speaking words that, although meaningful, are not spoken at the appropriate time, which also constitutes frivolous speech; also, speaking at the right time, but speaking to a free person in a crowd, also constitutes frivolous speech. ‘Associated with evil dharmas’ refers to all frivolous talk, unlawful singing and dancing, etc., and everything that is not associated with wholesome dharmas is frivolous speech. ‘Doing aspect’, ‘Not doing aspect’, ‘No doing aspect’ are as described in the previous section on killing. ‘Greed’ refers to being entangled by the mind of love, desiring to obtain the wealth of others. Being firmly bound by love and greed, seeking the freedom of others, this is called greed. ‘Anger’ refers to arising an evil mind towards other sentient beings, desiring to beat and harm them, which is contrary to great compassion, this is called anger. ‘Sentient beings’ refers to being apart from non-sentient things. ‘Others’ refers to being apart from oneself. Saying ‘anger towards other sentient beings’ refers to arising an evil mind towards other sentient beings. ‘Harming’ refers to lacking a compassionate mind. ‘Beating’ refers to lacking a merciful mind, because one wants to end their life. Also, ‘beating’ refers to using whips, sticks, earth, stones, etc., that can cause suffering and distress, all of which are called beating. ‘Contrary to compassion and mercy’ refers to wanting to end the life of others, which is contrary to compassion; beating others is contrary to mercy, and these are called anger. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
邪见者，于施等中见无施等。此明何义？于施中见无施，于与中见无与，于舍中见无舍，如是等见名为邪见。” 问曰：“云何如是名为邪见？又施与舍三句有何差别？” 答曰：“施者正心施与福田非福田，与者亦正心施与福田非福田，舍者但正心施与福田。又言：见无施者，见所施不清净故。又言：见无与者，谤无施主功德故。又言：见无舍者，谤无受者功德故。如是不正见皆悭人相，以见富人悭惜贫者能舍，此人起如是心。若实有施者，悭人不应富。何以故？以其先世习悭来久故。复生疑心，此能施主不应贫穷。何以故？以其先世习施来久故。彼人虽生如是邪见，而义不如是。” 问曰：“若尔，此义云何？” 答曰：“彼人过去虽久习悭，而忽值遇清净福田，于彼田中少行布施，是故获得今身富报，以习成性悭犹不舍。贫能施者，此复云何？彼人过去于非福田无信心故、不至心故、为名称故、为求事故、求尊重故，彼人能施，以是义故不得富报，习施来故今犹能舍。无善行恶行者，此依自身见常无常起于过相。无善恶行业果报者，彼人见有行善者受苦、行恶者受乐，是故彼人生如是心，苦乐果报自然而有非从因缘。无此世他世者，彼人心见即此世灭，以不见更生故，此人起心言无后 现代汉语译本： ‘邪见’是指在布施等行为中，认为没有布施等善行。这是什么意思呢？认为布施中没有布施，给予中没有给予，舍弃中没有舍弃，像这样的见解就叫做‘邪见’。 有人问：‘为什么这样的见解被称为‘邪见’？而且，布施、给予、舍弃这三个词有什么区别？’ 回答说：‘‘施’是指以正直的心，布施给福田（指值得布施的对象，如僧侣）或非福田（指不值得布施的对象）；‘与’也是指以正直的心，给予福田或非福田；‘舍’则是指仅仅以正直的心，施与福田。此外，说‘认为没有布施’，是因为认为所布施的东西不干净。说‘认为没有给予’，是因为诽谤施主的功德。说‘认为没有舍弃’，是因为诽谤接受布施者的功德。像这样不正的见解都是悭吝之人的表现，因为他们看到富人吝啬，而穷人却能施舍，这个人就产生了这样的想法：如果真的有布施，那么悭吝的人不应该富有。为什么呢？因为他们前世长期习惯于悭吝。又产生怀疑，认为这个能布施的人不应该贫穷。为什么呢？因为他们前世长期习惯于布施。这个人虽然产生了这样的邪见，但道理并不是这样的。’ 有人问：‘如果这样，那道理是什么呢？’ 回答说：‘那个人过去虽然长期习惯于悭吝，但忽然遇到清净的福田，在那块田中稍微行了布施，因此获得了今生富有的果报，但由于习性难改，悭吝的习气仍然没有舍弃。贫穷却能施舍的人，这又是什么原因呢？那个人过去对于非福田没有信心，不至诚，为了名声，为了求取利益，为了求得尊重，那个人虽然能施舍，因为这个原因，所以没有得到富有的果报，但由于习惯于布施，所以今生仍然能够舍弃。’‘没有善行恶行’，这是指依据自身，认为事物是常或无常，从而产生过失。‘没有善恶行业果报’，那个人看到有行善的人遭受痛苦，行恶的人享受快乐，因此那个人产生这样的想法，认为苦乐的果报是自然而有的，不是从因缘产生的。‘没有此世他世’，那个人心里认为人在此世灭亡，因为没有看到来世的再生，这个人就产生这样的想法，认为没有来世。
English
English version: 'Wrong view' is to see no giving, etc., in giving, etc. What does this mean? To see no giving in giving, no bestowing in bestowing, no relinquishing in relinquishing; such views are called 'wrong view.' Someone asks: 'Why is it called 'wrong view' in this way? And what is the difference between the three terms: giving, bestowing, and relinquishing?' The answer is: 'Giving' refers to giving with a correct mind to fields of merit (those worthy of giving, such as monks) or non-fields of merit (those not worthy of giving); 'bestowing' also refers to giving with a correct mind to fields of merit or non-fields of merit; 'relinquishing' refers only to giving with a correct mind to fields of merit. Furthermore, to say 'seeing no giving' is because one sees that what is given is not pure. To say 'seeing no bestowing' is because one slanders the merit of the giver. To say 'seeing no relinquishing' is because one slanders the merit of the receiver. Such incorrect views are all characteristics of stingy people, because they see rich people being stingy and poor people being able to give, and this person then has this thought: If there really is giving, then stingy people should not be rich. Why is that? Because they have long been accustomed to stinginess in their past lives. They also become doubtful, thinking that this giver should not be poor. Why is that? Because they have long been accustomed to giving in their past lives. Although that person has such wrong views, the principle is not like that.' Someone asks: 'If that's the case, then what is the principle?' The answer is: 'Although that person was long accustomed to stinginess in the past, they suddenly encountered a pure field of merit and performed a small act of giving in that field, and therefore obtained the reward of wealth in this life, but because habits are hard to change, the habit of stinginess has not yet been relinquished. As for the poor person who is able to give, what is the reason for this? In the past, that person had no faith in non-fields of merit, was not sincere, did it for fame, for seeking benefits, for seeking respect; that person was able to give, and for this reason, they did not obtain the reward of wealth, but because they were accustomed to giving, they are still able to relinquish in this life.' 'No good deeds or bad deeds' refers to relying on oneself and considering things as permanent or impermanent, thereby giving rise to faults. 'No karmic retribution for good or bad deeds' refers to that person seeing that those who do good suffer and those who do evil enjoy happiness, and therefore that person has this thought, believing that the results of suffering and happiness are natural and not caused by conditions. 'No this life or next life' refers to that person thinking in their heart that people perish in this life, and because they do not see rebirth in the next life, this person then has this thought, believing that there is no next life. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
世。彼人复生是心，实无有我；若有我者，世间则无化生众生，以不观察十二因缘故。复生疑心，一切男女为自乐故而行淫欲，不为生我，我依自业于此中生，如湿生众生依湿地生，湿地非是众生父母，我亦如是。又见罗汉求冷求热求饮食等，便谓世间无阿罗汉。何以故？以阿罗汉有爱心故，彼人自无修行等力，是故不能断诸烦恼，便谓世间无阿罗汉。” 问曰：“应说离杀生义。以何义故得名为离？为有可杀事故得名为离、为无可杀事故而名为离？若有可杀事故名为离者，离义不成。何以故？以作习果成故，云何而言离于杀生？若无可杀事故名为离者，则无离杀生福，如无兔角可以割截，则亦无有离割截义。又言离杀生者，名为不杀生事，不舍摄众生事。” 答曰：“以受不杀生法，依本受心有力故，不作彼杀生恶事，以受离杀生法，以起善法，是故离杀生，不离摄取众生。” 问曰：“为于可杀众生边离杀生、为于不可杀众生边离杀生、为于可杀不可杀众生边离杀生？” 答曰：“于可杀不可杀众生边离杀生。何以故？以起恶心不休息故，是故名为离于杀生。此明何义？若于可杀众生边离杀生，不可杀众生边不离杀生者，离义不成。此复何义？以离可杀众生边罪，成不可杀众生边福。以 现代汉语译本 那个人又产生这样的想法：实际上没有‘我’（ātman），如果真有‘我’，世间就不会有化生（upapāduka）的众生，因为他们不观察十二因缘（dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda）的缘故。他们又产生怀疑，认为一切男女为了自己的快乐而行淫欲，不是为了生‘我’，‘我’依靠自己的业（karma）在此中出生，就像湿生（saṃsvedaja）的众生依靠潮湿的土地而生，潮湿的土地不是众生的父母，‘我’也是这样。他们又看见阿罗汉（arhat）寻求冷、寻求热、寻求饮食等，就认为世间没有阿罗汉。为什么呢？因为他们认为阿罗汉有爱心（sneha）的缘故。这些人自己没有修行等力量，所以不能断除各种烦恼（kleśa），就认为世间没有阿罗汉。’ 问：‘应该说说远离杀生的意义。因为什么意义而得名为远离？是因为有可以杀的事物而得名为远离，还是因为没有可以杀的事物而得名为远离？如果有可以杀的事物而得名为远离，那么远离的意义就不能成立。为什么呢？因为造作的习气和果报已经形成，怎么能说远离了杀生呢？如果没有可以杀的事物而得名为远离，那么就没有远离杀生的福德，就像没有兔角可以割截，那么也就没有远离割截的意义。又说远离杀生，是指不做杀生的事，不舍弃摄受众生的事。’ 答：‘因为受持不杀生的戒法，依靠最初受戒的心有力量的缘故，不做那杀生的恶事，因为受持远离杀生的戒法，因为生起善法，所以是远离杀生，而不是远离摄取众生。’ 问：‘是在可以杀的众生这边远离杀生，还是在不可以杀的众生这边远离杀生，还是在可以杀和不可以杀的众生这边远离杀生？’ 答：‘在可以杀和不可以杀的众生这边都远离杀生。为什么呢？因为生起恶心就不会停止的缘故，所以名为远离杀生。这说明什么意义呢？如果只在可以杀的众生这边远离杀生，在不可以杀的众生这边不远离杀生，那么远离的意义就不能成立。这又说明什么意义呢？因为远离了可以杀的众生这边的罪过，成就了不可以杀的众生那边的福德。
English
English version That person again generates this thought: ‘In reality, there is no ‘self’ (ātman); if there truly were a ‘self’, there would be no spontaneously born (upapāduka) beings in the world, because they do not observe the twelve links of dependent origination (dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda).’ They again generate doubt, thinking that all men and women engage in sexual activity for their own pleasure, not to give birth to ‘me’; ‘I’ am born here relying on my own karma, just as moisture-born (saṃsvedaja) beings are born relying on moist ground; the moist ground is not the parents of the beings, and ‘I’ am the same.’ They also see Arhats (arhat) seeking cold, seeking heat, seeking food and drink, and then think that there are no Arhats in the world. Why? Because they think that Arhats have affection (sneha). These people themselves do not have the power of practice, so they cannot cut off various afflictions (kleśa), and then they think that there are no Arhats in the world.’ Question: ‘One should speak of the meaning of abstaining from killing. By what meaning is it called abstaining? Is it called abstaining because there are things that can be killed, or is it called abstaining because there are no things that can be killed? If it is called abstaining because there are things that can be killed, then the meaning of abstaining cannot be established. Why? Because the habits and consequences of actions have already been formed, how can it be said that one abstains from killing? If it is called abstaining because there are no things that can be killed, then there is no merit from abstaining from killing, just as there are no rabbit horns that can be cut off, then there is also no meaning of abstaining from cutting. Furthermore, to abstain from killing means not doing the act of killing, and not abandoning the act of embracing beings.’ Answer: ‘Because one upholds the precept of not killing, relying on the power of the initial mind of taking the precept, one does not do the evil deed of killing. Because one upholds the precept of abstaining from killing, because one generates good dharmas, therefore it is abstaining from killing, not abstaining from embracing beings.’ Question: ‘Is it abstaining from killing with regard to beings that can be killed, or is it abstaining from killing with regard to beings that cannot be killed, or is it abstaining from killing with regard to beings that can and cannot be killed?’ Answer: ‘It is abstaining from killing with regard to beings that can and cannot be killed. Why? Because if evil thoughts arise, they will not cease, therefore it is called abstaining from killing. What meaning does this clarify? If one only abstains from killing with regard to beings that can be killed, and does not abstain from killing with regard to beings that cannot be killed, then the meaning of abstaining cannot be established. What meaning does this further clarify? Because one abstains from the sins related to beings that can be killed, one accomplishes merit related to beings that cannot be killed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------