大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 70.48

70.48

疏「然今既云有表示」下，但順經文，而非論意。表即表彰，相可見故。無表反此。《俱舍．業品》云「世別由業生，思及思所作。思即是意業，所作謂身語。」釋曰：謂有問言：世從何生？初句答云：從業而生。次句示二種業：一者思業、二者思已，即下二句開二為三。然其意業，約等起立業。既是思與意相應，意等引起名為意業。言身業者，約所依立身，謂色身業依身起，故名身業。言語業者，約自性立，語即業故。次開二業成表無表，偈云「此身語二業，俱表無表性。」釋曰：論釋此二，其文繁廣，今當略示。初立有宗正理云：身表許別形，故形為身表，如合掌等。許有別形，形即是表，表善惡故。表即是業，此之形色依身起，故名為身業。次破正量部云：非行動為體，行動即是有為。有為有剎那，後有盡故。此之滅法，更不待因。身表是果，果必待因故。論主次復破有宗云：形色非實有，應二根取故。謂依多顯色假立長等，無別極微，故假非實。若言有實，顯是眼境，形可身取。今顯即形，應二根取。形雖是表，而非是業，業是思故。依身行門，故名身業。次立語云：語表許言聲。謂且許之，以其言聲為語業體。業體亦以發語之思以為語業，語門行故，語之業故。則分同大乘。言「無表」者，《俱舍》云「無表雖以色為其性如有表業，而非表示令他了知，故名無表。」又頌云「亂心無心等，隨流淨不淨，大種所造故，由此說無表。」上依小乘，次下依大乘明表無表。然《唯識》示正義云「然心為因，令識所變示色等相生滅相續，轉趣餘方似有動作，表示心故，假名身表。然因心故識變似聲生滅相續，似有表示，假名語業。」釋曰：《唯識》但約心變，即異小乘。次明無表云「表既不實，無表寧真？」然依思願善惡分限，假立無表，理亦無違。次下大小乘對辨也。然《俱舍》意，唯身語二俱表無表。而《唯識》意，無表既依表上假立，是故疏云「表則三皆是思」。若以非色非心而為無表，則意亦有矣。故《瑜伽》五十三云「云何表業？略有三種：一染污、二善、三無記。若於身語意十不善業道，不離現行增上力，有身語表業，名染污表業。所治三也。若即於彼誓受遠離所有身語表，名善表業，此身語善表也。若諸威儀路、工巧處一分所有身語表業，名無記表業，此身語無記表業。若有不欲表示於他，唯自起心內意思擇不說語言，但發善染污無記法現行意表業，名意業。」釋曰：此顯意業亦具三性。「自能曉了我今造作如是事業，別表於後意俱之表，名為意表；意為無表。如理思之。」釋曰：故知大乘三皆有表，廣如別章。大乘法師《法苑》中十門分別：一辨名、二出體、三假實分別、四具支多少、五得捨分齊、六依他有無、七四大造性、八應成差別、九先後得捨、十釋諸妨難。廣如彼說。疏「方便差別」者，心為起業之方便，故經云「與心同生不離者，業共心生，生已不離。」此言業行常依心王也。

Regarding the commentary's "However, now that it says 'having manifest expression'" downwards: this merely accords with the sūtra text, and is not the intention of the treatise. "Manifest" means making visible, because its marks can be seen. "Unmanifest" is the opposite of this. The "Chapter on Karma" in the Abhidharmakośa states: "The varieties of the world arise from karma: volition and what is done by volition. Volition is mental karma; what is done refers to body and speech." Explanation: someone asks: "From what does the world arise?" The first line answers: "It arises from karma." The next line indicates the two kinds of karma: first, volitional karma; second, that done after having willed. That is, the next two lines open the two into three. However, mental karma is established in terms of equipollent arising: since it is volition associated with the mind, being equipollently induced by the mind, it is called mental karma. Bodily karma is established in terms of its support; that is, the karma of the physical body arises based on the body, so it is called bodily karma. Vocal karma is established in terms of its intrinsic nature, because speech itself is karma. Next, the two karmas are opened into manifest and unmanifest; the verse states: "These two karmas of body and speech are both of manifest and unmanifest nature." Explanation: the treatise's explanation of these two is extensive; it will now be briefly presented. First, establishing the orthodox tenet of the Sarvāstivāda: bodily manifest expression is accepted as distinct shape; thus shape is bodily manifest expression, such as joining the palms. Accepting that there is distinct shape, shape is precisely manifest expression, because it expresses good and evil. Manifest expression is karma; this shape-form arises based on the body, so it is called bodily karma. Next, refuting the Sāṃmitīya: bodily karma does not take motion as its substance; motion is conditioned. Conditioned things are momentary, having cessation in the next moment. This phenomenon of cessation does not further depend on a cause. Bodily manifest expression is an effect, and an effect must depend on a cause. The treatise master next also refutes the Sarvāstivāda: shape-form is not substantially existent, for it would have to be grasped by two sense faculties. That is, based on many colors, long and short are provisionally established; there are no separate ultimate atoms, so it is provisional and not real. If one says it is substantial, color is an object of the eye, whereas shape can be grasped by the body. Now, if color were identical to shape, it would have to be grasped by two sense faculties. Although shape is manifest expression, it is not karma, because karma is volition. Because it operates through the gate of the body, it is called bodily karma. Next, establishing speech: vocal manifest expression is accepted as speech-sound. That is, tentatively accepting it, speech-sound is taken as the substance of vocal karma. The substance of karma also takes the volition that produces speech as vocal karma; because it operates through the gate of speech, and is the karma of speech, it partially agrees with the Mahāyāna. Regarding "unmanifest": the Kośa states: "Although unmanifest has form as its nature just as manifest karma does, it does not express itself to make another understand, so it is called unmanifest." Furthermore, a verse states: "Distracted mind, mindless states, etc., flowing along with good and bad, being made of the great elements: because of this, it is called unmanifest." The above is according to the Hīnayāna; next below, manifest and unmanifest are explained according to the Mahāyāna. The Cheng weishi lun presents the correct doctrine: "Mind acts as the cause, causing the manifestations of form, etc., transformed by consciousness to continuously arise and cease, shifting toward another place as if there were motion; because it expresses the mind, it is provisionally called bodily manifest expression. Because of the mind, consciousness transforms into a semblance of sound that continuously arises and ceases, appearing to have manifest expression; this is provisionally called vocal karma." Explanation: the Cheng weishi lun speaks merely in terms of transformation by mind, which differs from the Hīnayāna. Next, clarifying unmanifest, it says: "Since manifest expression is unreal, how could unmanifest expression be genuine?" However, provisionally establishing unmanifest based on the boundaries of good and evil in volition and resolve does not contradict reason. Next below is the comparative analysis of Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna. The intention of the Kośa is that only body and speech possess both manifest and unmanifest. But in the Cheng weishi lun, since unmanifest is provisionally established upon manifest expression, the commentary says: "As for manifest expression, all three are volition." If non-form and non-mind are taken as unmanifest, then mind also has it. Hence the Yogācārabhūmi, fascicle 53, states: "What is manifest karma? Briefly, there are three kinds: first, defiled; second, wholesome; third, indeterminate. If, regarding the ten unwholesome courses of karma of body, speech, and mind, not departing from the predominant force of active manifestation, there is manifest karma of body and speech, it is called defiled manifest karma: the three to be remedied. If, regarding those very actions, one vows to undertake abstention and possesses all manifest expression of body and speech, it is called wholesome manifest karma: this is wholesome manifest expression of body and speech. If, in a portion of all deportments and skills, there is manifest karma of body and speech, it is called indeterminate manifest karma: this is indeterminate manifest expression of body and speech. If someone does not wish to express to others, but merely generates thoughts within his own mind, deliberating without speaking words, and merely produces active mental manifest karma of wholesome, defiled, or indeterminate phenomena, it is called mental karma." Explanation: this shows that mental karma also possesses the three natures. "Being able to understand by oneself, 'I am now performing such an action,' distinctly expressing afterwards the expression concurrent with the mind, is called mental manifest expression; the mind is unmanifest expression. Contemplate this according to reason." Explanation: hence we know that in the Mahāyāna all three possess manifest expression, as detailed in a separate chapter. The Mahāyāna Master [Kuiji], in the Fayuan, distinguishes ten topics: first, distinguishing the names; second, identifying the substance; third, distinguishing provisional and real; fourth, how many limbs are possessed; fifth, the limits of acquisition and abandonment; sixth, the presence or absence of dependence on others; seventh, the nature of being made of the four great elements; eighth, corresponding differentiations; ninth, sequence of acquisition and abandonment; tenth, resolving objections. It is extensively as explained there. Regarding the commentary's "differentiation of upāya": the mind is the upāya for initiating karma; hence the sūtra says: "Born together with the mind and not separated from it: karma is born together with the mind, and once born, does not separate." This means that the activity of karma always relies on the sovereign mind.