大般涅槃經義記 9.179

9.179

第十三門明無作戒是色非色。先辨諍相。《毘曇》法中說無作戒一向是色，四大所造。《成實》法中一向說為非色非心。諍相如是。次辨道理。小乘所受無作之戒亦色非色，是其色法，故名為色；而非色事，故曰非色。是義云何？所受是其身口止業，從身口生，防禁身口，故名色法。此直受得。遮制之法，如結界處。亦如僧制，未有事相故非色事。大乘所受是色心法，非色心事，大乘通受防心戒故。今且論小。義既如是，人聞色法即便取之以為色事，所以不解；聞非色事便取以為非色心法，亦是不解。文中初先說戒為色，凡聞起諍。句別有五：一菩提王子說心為戒，若發惡心則便失戒。二如來對破，說戒為色。以是色故，其心雖在惡無記中，猶名持戒。三王子請問，「以何因緣名無作色」。四如來為解，「非異色因，又復不作異色因果」，以是因緣名無作色。此相微隱，三義釋之：一約方便報色辨異。非異色因，不同報色。方便之色依於報起而不同報，故名異色。報色是彼異色家本，名異色因。戒不同彼，是以言非。道言「不作異因果」者，明戒不同方便之色。方便之色依報色起，是向異色因家之果；無作異彼，故言不作異色因果。二約方便因果辨異。方便之色，別報稱異。此異色中受戒方便名異色因，作戒之體名異色果。無作異彼，故非異因，不作異果。三約方便受持辨異。方便色中受戒名因，身口作持名異色果。無作異彼，故非異因，不作異果，不同此等名無作色。雖有三釋，第二應善，受法相望以辨異故。此第四竟。五因聖說凡聞起諍。下說非色，凡聞起諍。「戒者即是遮止惡法」正明非色。方便要期，發得遮制心口之法，未是事相，故名非色。「若不作惡是名持戒」舉持顯受。下明弟子聞說起諍。

The thirteenth section clarifies whether unmanifest precept is form or non-form. First, to explain the forms of dispute: in the system of the Abhidharma, unmanifest precept is said to be definitely form, created by the four great elements. In the system of the *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra*, it is definitely said to be neither form nor mind. Such are the forms of dispute. Next, to explain the principle: the unmanifest precept received in the Hīnayāna is also both form and non-form. It is a form dharma, hence it is called form; but it is not a concrete form-entity, hence it is called non-form. What does this mean? What is received is the physical and vocal karma of cessation; it arises from body and speech, and prevents and restrains body and speech, hence it is called a form dharma. This is received directly. As a dharma of prohibition and restraint, it is like establishing a boundary (sīmā). It is also like the monastic regulations of the Saṅgha: since it does not yet have a concrete phenomenal mark, it is not a concrete form-entity. What is received in the Mahāyāna is a dharma of form and mind, not a concrete entity of form and mind, because the Mahāyāna universally receives the precept that protects the mind. For now we discuss the Hīnayāna. Since the meaning is like this, when people hear that it is a form dharma, they immediately seize upon it as a concrete form-entity, and thus fail to understand; when they hear that it is not a concrete form-entity, they seize upon it as not being a dharma of form or mind, and likewise fail to understand. In the text, it first speaks of the precept as form, and ordinary people hear it and raise disputes. There are five distinct phrases: First, Prince Bodhi says that the mind is the precept; if one gives rise to an evil mind, one immediately loses the precept. Second, the Tathāgata refutes this, speaking of the precept as form. Because it is form, even when one's mind is in evil or indeterminate states, one is still said to maintain the precept. Third, the prince asks, "By what reason is it called unmanifest form?" Fourth, the Tathāgata explains for him: "It is not the cause of a different form, nor does it make the effect of the cause of a different form; by this reason it is called unmanifest form." This aspect is subtle and hidden, and is explained through three meanings: First, distinguishing difference in terms of the form of expedient means and the form of retribution: 'not the cause of a different form' means it is not like the form of retribution. The form of expedient means arises relying on retribution but is not identical to retribution, hence it is called 'different form'. The form of retribution is the root of that different form, called the cause of a different form. The precept is not like that, which is why it says 'not'. When it says 'does not make the effect of a different cause', it clarifies that the precept is not like the form of expedient means. The form of expedient means arises relying on the form of retribution, and is the effect of the preceding cause of a different form; the unmanifest is different from that, so it says 'does not make the effect of the cause of a different form'. Second, distinguishing difference in terms of the causes and effects of expedient means: the form of expedient means is called 'different' in contrast to retribution. Within this different form, the expedient means of receiving the precept is called the cause of a different form, and the substance of the manifest precept is called the effect of a different form. The unmanifest is different from that, hence it is not the different cause, and does not make the different effect. Third, distinguishing difference in terms of receiving and maintaining through expedient means: within the form of expedient means, receiving the precept is called the cause, and maintaining it through physical and vocal action is called the effect of a different form. The unmanifest is different from that, hence it is not the different cause, and does not make the different effect; not being like these, it is called unmanifest form. Although there are three explanations, the second should be the best, because difference is distinguished by comparing the received dharmas. This concludes the fourth. Fifth, based on the sage's teaching, ordinary people hear it and raise disputes. Below, it speaks of non-form, and ordinary people hear it and raise disputes. "Precept is simply the prevention and stopping of evil dharmas" directly clarifies non-form. Through an initial resolve of expedient means, one brings about the dharma that prohibits and restrains mind and speech; since it is not yet a concrete phenomenal mark, it is called non-form. "If one does not commit evil, this is called maintaining the precept" cites maintaining to reveal receiving. Below, it clarifies that the disciples hear this spoken and raise disputes.