English
English version: Because the nature of phenomena (dharma-lakshana) is constantly arising and ceasing, there is another phenomenon (dharma) that arises based on the differences in mind, relying on hands, feet, etc. This phenomenon can cause hands, feet, etc., to move. It is the cause of arising in different directions, and this is called action, also known as kaya-vijnapti (bodily expression). Where is this included? It is included in the rupa-ayatana (sphere of form). If so, why is it not allowed to be seen by the eyes, like various visible forms? Since it is not something seen, it cannot express anything to others, so how can it be called an 'expression'? And how do we know that this phenomenon is truly existent? How can this phenomenon cause itself to move to other directions and arise differently? If it is said that it is due to the vayu-dhatu (wind element) produced by the differences in mind, then it should be so. The nature of the wind element is movement, and the feet can be the cause of its arising in different directions. Why, apart from the wind element, cling to the existence of a phenomenon called 'movement'? Moreover, grass, leaves, etc., apart from the external wind element, have no other phenomenon of 'movement,' so how can they move? However, various wind elements, shaking, touching, etc., arise, and their nature is movement, so it should be allowed that they can cause hands, etc., to move to other directions and arise. Why bother clinging to a separate phenomenon of 'movement'? Neither its essence nor its function can sufficiently prove the existence of a phenomenon of 'movement'. If not, then the vayu-dhatu (wind element) produced by the differences in mind, which can be the cause of hands, etc., arising in different directions, should be the kaya-vijnapti (bodily expression). In this way, the wind element has nothing to express, so how can it be called an 'expression'? Also, if you allow that sprsa-ayatana (touch) is good or bad, then you are not a disciple of Shakyamuni Buddha. If not, then the arising of oneself in other directions, caused by the differences in mind, should be the kaya-vijnapti (bodily expression). In that case, kaya-vijnapti (bodily expression) should be provisional and not real, because oneself is a combination of many phenomena. Moreover, it has nothing to express, so how can it be called an 'expression'? Scents, etc., cannot express anything, and if you allow that scents, etc., are good or bad, then you are not a disciple of Shakyamuni Buddha. If not, then the varna (visible form) produced by the differences in mind should be the kaya-vijnapti (bodily expression). Visible form is not produced by the differences in mind, but by its own seed and the differences in wind. Also, if you allow that visible form is good or bad, then you are not a disciple of Shakyamuni Buddha. If the essence of this visible form is not kaya-vijnapti (bodily expression), then this arising in other directions should be kaya-vijnapti (bodily expression). Devanampriya (beloved of the gods, a respectful term for monks), let you exert all your effort and diligently speculate on this function of 'expression.' However, this cannot be accomplished by effort, so why waste your energy in vain? Who can establish that 'arising' is another entity? This 'arising' that you cling to is not like visible forms, which can be directly seen; nor is it like the eyes, which can observe. It cannot be observed, so how do you know it exists? And since it is invisible, how can it be called an 'expression'? It has been said before. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
不能表示他故。又若显色是善不善。可说此生为身表业。然诸显色非善不善。前已说故。生亦应然。是故定无身实表业。若尔身业应唯无表。此无表名为目何法。谓法处摄律仪色等。云何欲界有善无表离表而发。若欲界中有此无表复有何过。应随心转。如在色界是则余心及无心位。应无律仪不律仪等。若谓受时要期发语。所引发故无斯过者。说戒经时默无所说亦无要期。如何获得虚诳语罪。又应无有无记身业。以无表业唯二种故。又亦应无一刹那顷善恶身业。以诸无表定相续故。谓若轻心不发无表。重心所发决定相续。虽彼随情计度实有身语业色。而不应成善不善性。所以者何。彼说色业于命终位必皆舍故。如何由此能得当来爱非爱果。有作是言此何非理。谓过去业其体实有。能得当来所感果故。此于痈上更复生痈。谓执过去业体实有。先有后无名为过去。如何可执其体实有。若尔世尊何故自说。 业虽经百劫 而终无失坏 遇众缘合时 要当酬彼果 无失坏言。为显何义。显所作业非无果义由后半颂证此义成。谁不信受善不善业。虽经久远而能得果。但应思择。如何得果。为由相续转变差别。如稻种等而得果耶。为由自相经久远时安住不坏而得果耶。若由相续转变差别而得果者。义且可然。若由自 现代汉语译本：不能表示其他原因。又如果显色是善或不善，可以说此生为身表业。然而，各种显色并非善或不善，之前已经说过了。生也应该如此。因此，可以确定没有真实的身体表业。如果这样，身体的业应该只有无表业。这个无表业指的是什么法呢？指的是法处所摄的律仪色等。为什么欲界会有善的无表业，而离开表业而产生呢？如果欲界中有这种无表业，又有什么过失呢？应该随心而转。如果在是则余心及无心位，应该没有律仪、不律仪等。如果说受戒时，通过要期发语所引发，所以没有这种过失，那么在说戒经时，沉默没有说话，也没有要期，如何获得虚诳语罪呢？又应该没有无记的身业，因为无表业只有两种。又也应该没有一刹那间的善恶身业，因为各种无表业一定是相续的。如果轻心不发无表业，重心所发的一定相续。虽然他们随自己的想法认为确实有身语业色，但不应该成为善或不善的性质。为什么呢？因为他们说色业在命终时一定会全部舍弃。如何由此能够得到将来的可爱或不可爱果报呢？有人这样说，这有什么不合理呢？过去所造的业，它的本体是真实存在的，能够得到将来的果报。这就像在痈上又生了痈。执着过去业的本体真实存在，先有后无的叫做过去，怎么能执着它的本体真实存在呢？如果这样，世尊为什么自己说： ‘业虽经百劫，而终无失坏，遇众缘合时，要当酬彼果。’ ‘无失坏’这句话，是为了显示什么意义呢？是为了显示所造的业不会没有果报的意义，由后半句诗可以证明这个意义成立。谁不相信善不善的业，即使经过很久远的时间，也能够得到果报呢？但应该思考，如何得到果报呢？是通过相续转变差别，像稻种等而得到果报呢？还是通过自相经过久远的时间安住不坏而得到果报呢？如果是通过相续转变差别而得到果报，道理还说得过去。如果是通过自相经
English
English version: It cannot indicate other causes. Furthermore, if manifest form (顯色) is good or bad, it can be said that this birth is bodily expression karma (身表業). However, various manifest forms are neither good nor bad, as has been said before. Birth should also be the same. Therefore, it is certain that there is no real bodily expression karma. If so, bodily karma should only be non-manifest karma (無表業). What dharma (法) does this non-manifest karma refer to? It refers to the restraining color (律儀色) etc. included in the realm of dharmas (法處). Why does the desire realm (欲界) have good non-manifest karma, arising apart from expression karma? If there is this non-manifest karma in the desire realm, what fault is there? It should follow the mind's changes. As in 'is then other minds' and 'mindless states', there should be no restraints, non-restraints, etc. If it is said that during the time of receiving precepts, it is initiated by the vow and utterance, so there is no such fault, then during the recitation of the precept sutra (說戒經), there is silence without speaking, and no vow, how is the sin of false speech (虛诳語罪) obtained? Furthermore, there should be no neutral bodily karma (無記身業), because there are only two kinds of non-manifest karma. Also, there should be no good or bad bodily karma in one instant, because all non-manifest karmas are definitely continuous. If a light mind does not initiate non-manifest karma, the non-manifest karma initiated by a heavy mind is definitely continuous. Although they, according to their own ideas, believe that there are indeed bodily and verbal karma colors (身語業色), they should not become good or bad in nature. Why? Because they say that color karma must all be abandoned at the time of death. How can one obtain the future beloved or unloved result from this? Some say, what is unreasonable about this? The past karma, its substance is truly existent, and can obtain the future result. This is like growing another sore on a sore. Holding that the substance of past karma is truly existent, having it first and then not having it is called the past, how can one hold that its substance is truly existent? If so, why did the World Honored One (世尊) himself say: ‘Karma, though passing through hundreds of kalpas (劫), will ultimately not be lost. When the conditions come together, it will surely repay its fruit.’ What meaning does the phrase ‘will not be lost’ reveal? It reveals the meaning that the karma created will not be without result, and the second half of the verse proves this meaning. Who does not believe that good and bad karma, even after a long time, can obtain results? But one should consider how to obtain results. Is it through the differences in the transformation of continuity, like rice seeds, etc., that one obtains results? Or is it through the self-nature abiding without decay for a long time that one obtains results? If it is through the differences in the transformation of continuity that one obtains results, the reasoning is still acceptable. If it is through the self-nature --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
相经久远时安住不坏而得果者。应言此业经久远时体不谢灭而能得果。若谓此业非自相。无名为谢灭。然由此业无复作用名谢灭者。如何此业无复作用。由更不能引当果故。何缘不能更引当果。此于彼果已曾引故。不可于果引而复引。如法已生不重生故。何缘不引余等流果。以等流果无分限故。岂不此果亦现在时。已曾引故不须重引。业体不灭常应现在。何不常引所得果耶。岂不前言不可于果引而复引。如法已生不重生故。如何复难前虽有言而未释难。业体恒有应如中际。常名现在常能引果。应如初际恒复可生。若谓过去业体虽有。而无作用故非现在。非现在故不能引果。此亦不然。既恒有体应如现在恒有作用。又汝所宗过去诸法有与果用何非现在。若谓现在。唯依诸法取果用说。理亦不然。用义同故。应俱现在过去诸法。无取果用名过去者。有与果用应名现在。此用尽时应名谢灭。是则诸法灭而复灭。如是亦应生而复生。故彼宗义理不成立。又法如何名能引果。谓安立彼令当生故。诸漏尽者。最后刹那应不引果后不生故。是则此念应非现在。不应更灭入于过去。初现在时已无作用。如何后时说名谢灭。若虽无用而更灭者。是则过去复应须灭。若灭已复灭。应生已更生。便有自违前所说过。若谓此念虽有能生后果作用 。而缘阙故后果不生。此亦非理。果必不生。如何知有能生作用。应言此念违顺二缘有非有故。虽从因生而无作用能生后果。是故彼宗如是种类能引果义理必不成。由此但应于果种子能长养故。名能引果。又彼宗说过去未来体皆实有未来。何故非如现在能引果耶。若一切时一切物有何时何物体非有故。而经言遇众缘合时当酬彼果。又彼应说谁于何位于谁有能言安立彼令当生故。名能引果。以一切时一切有故。是故所言谓过去业其体实有能得当来。所感果者。理定不成。 若尔应许由善不善身语二业。蕴相续中引别法起。其体实有心不相应行蕴所摄。有说此法名为增长。有说此法名不失坏。由此法故能得当来爱非爱果。意业亦应许有此法。若不尔者余心起时此便断灭。心相续中若不引起如是别法。云何能得当来世果。是故定应许有此法。若于先时诵习文义。后经久远复生忆念。又于先时于诸境界数见闻等。后经久远于彼境中还生忆念。于何刹那引起何法。由此后时还生忆念。 又先趣入灭定等心引起何法。由此后时还从定起生出定心。又紫矿汁染拘橼花。彼二俱灭引起何法。后结果时瓤生赤色。故离彼计身语二业所引别法。但应由思差别作用熏心相续令起功能。由此功能转变差别当来世果差别而生。如紫矿 现代汉语译本：如果缺少了（产生结果的）缘，那么结果就不会产生，这也是不合道理的。如果结果一定不会产生，又怎么知道有产生作用的能力呢？应该说，这个念头违背了顺缘和逆缘的有和无的条件。即使是从因产生的，也没有产生后果的作用。因此，他们的宗派所说的这种能够引出结果的道理一定不能成立。因此，只能说对于果实的种子，因为能够长养，所以才叫做能够引出结果。而且，他们的宗派说过去和未来的体都是真实存在的，那么未来为什么不能像现在一样引出结果呢？如果一切时、一切物都有，那么什么时候、什么物体不是有的呢？而经书上说，遇到各种因缘聚合的时候，就会酬报那个结果。而且，他们应该说，谁在什么位置，对于谁有能力安立它，使它应当产生，所以叫做能够引出结果。因为一切时都是有的。因此，所说的过去业，它的体是真实存在的，能够得到将来的感果，这个道理一定不能成立。 如果这样，就应该允许由善和不善的身语二业，在蕴（skandha）的相续中引出别的法生起，它的体是真实存在的，属于心不相应行蕴所摄。有人说这个法叫做增长，有人说这个法叫做不失坏。因为这个法，能够得到将来的可爱和不可爱果。意业也应该允许有这个法。如果不这样，其余的心生起的时候，这个法就会断灭。心相续中如果不引起像这样的别法，怎么能够得到将来的世果呢？所以一定要允许有这个法。如果在先前诵习文义，后来经过很久又产生忆念。又在先前对于各种境界多次见闻等等，后来经过很久，对于那个境界还产生忆念。在哪个刹那引起了什么法，因此后来还产生忆念。 又先前进入灭尽定（nirodha-samāpatti）等的心，引起了什么法，因此后来还从定中起来，产生出定心。又用紫矿汁染色拘橼花，那两个都灭了，引起了什么法，后来结果的时候，瓤产生红色。所以离开他们的计度，身语二业所引的别法，只应该由思的差别作用熏习心相续，使它产生功能。由此功能转变差别，将来的世果差别而生。就像紫矿一样。