四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔 2.51

2.51

三明發戒緣境寬狹。上卷受緣，已略明發戒方法，但心隨境起，故今廣論，令知戒德之高廣，亦使持者有勇勵。就中分四：一能緣心，現在相續心中緣。二所緣境。境通三世，如怨家，境雖過去，得起惡心，斬截死尸。現在怨家子，有可壞義；未來諸境，可以準知，故緣三世而發戒也。《成論》問：為但於現在得律儀，從三世眾生得耶？答：三世眾生所得。如人供養過去所尊，亦有福德；律儀亦爾。三發戒，現在相續心中得。四防非者，但防過去未來非，現在無非可防。問：毘尼殄已起，戒防未起，何得言斷過去非耶？答：境雖過去，非非過去，猶是戒防未起非。又解云：一專精不犯，戒防未起非；二犯已能悔，還令戒淨，即除已起非。餘如《戒本疏》解。然則緣境三世，得罪現在，過未二境，唯可起心，說言三世發也；若據得戒，唯在現在一念。《成論》云：慈悲布施，是亦有福；戒亦可爾，以通三世，皆與樂意。又云：慈功備物，但通現在，過未已謝；戒則不爾，要必普周，若作偏局，一向不合。故《多論》云：以惡心隨戒有增減故。問：戒從三世發，唯防二世非者？答：若論受體，獨不能防，但是防具；要須行者秉持，以隨資受，方成防非。不防現在，以無非也。若無持心，便成罪業；若有正念，過則不生故也。然又以隨資受，令未非應起不起，故防未非；若無其受，隨無所生。既起惡業，名曰過非；為護受體，不令塵染；懺除往業，名防過非。若爾，戒必防非，非何故起？答：要須行者，隨中方便，秉持制抗，方名防非。如城池弓刀，擬捍擊賊之譬。餘如《戒本疏》中解之。

Third, explaining the breadth and narrowness of the conditions and objects that generate the precepts. The chapter on conditions for receiving in the upper fascicle already briefly explained the method of generating the precepts. However, because the mind arises following objects, [this matter] is now discussed at length to make known the height and breadth of the virtue of the precepts, and also to cause those who observe them to be courageous and diligent. Within this, [the topic] is divided into four: First, the cognizing mind: [the precepts are] taken as objects within the present continuous mind. Second, the cognized objects: objects extend across the three time periods. For instance, regarding an enemy, although the object belongs to the past, one may generate an evil thought and mutilate their corpse. A living enemy's son entails the meaning of being destructible. Future objects may be understood by analogy with this. Therefore, generating the precepts takes the three time periods as objects. The *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra* asks: 'Does one obtain the moral restraint only regarding the present, or does one obtain it from sentient beings of the three time periods?' The answer states: 'It is obtained from sentient beings of the three time periods. Just as when a person makes offerings to those revered in the past, there is also merit; moral restraint is also like this.' Third, the generation of the precepts: they are obtained within the present continuous mind. Fourth, guarding against wrongs: one only guards against past and future wrongs; in the present there are no wrongs to be guarded against. Question: 'The Vinaya eliminates what has already arisen, while the precepts guard against what has not yet arisen; how can one say they sever past wrongs?' Answer: 'Although the object is in the past, the wrong is not in the past; it is still a matter of the precepts guarding against wrongs not yet arisen.' Another explanation states: 'First, being single-minded and not transgressing: the precepts guard against wrongs not yet arisen; second, being able to repent after transgressing to restore the purity of the precepts: this eliminates wrongs that have already arisen.' The remainder is explained as in the *Subcommentary on the Prātimokṣa*. Thus, while taking objects of the three periods, incurring offenses belongs to the present; past and future objects can only give rise to thoughts, and this is why they are spoken of as generating across the three periods. Yet regarding the obtaining of the precepts, it resides solely in the present single thought-moment. The *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra* states: 'Loving-kindness, compassion, and giving also yield merit; the precepts can also be like this, because they extend across the three periods, all with the intention of granting joy.' It also states: 'The efficacy of loving-kindness provides for things, but it extends only to the present, while past and future have already passed away. The precepts are not like this; they must encompass all universally. If one makes a partial restriction, it is entirely inappropriate.' Therefore the *Sarvāstivāda-vinaya-vibhāṣā* states: 'Because evil minds increase and decrease in accord with the precepts.' Question: 'The precepts are generated from the three periods, yet guard only against wrongs of two periods?' Answer: 'If one considers the essence of receiving [the precepts], on its own it cannot guard; it is merely an instrument of guarding. It requires the practitioner to uphold it, using subsequent [practice] to support the reception, before it constitutes guarding against wrongs. It does not guard the present, because there is no wrong. If there is no mind of observance, it immediately constitutes an offense karma; if there is right mindfulness, wrongs will not arise. Furthermore, using subsequent [practice] to support the reception causes future wrongs that would otherwise arise not to arise, and thus it guards against future wrongs; if there were no such reception, subsequent [practice] would have nothing to arise from. When evil karma has already arisen, it is called past wrong; protecting the essence of reception so as not to let it be defiled by dust, and repenting to eliminate former karma, is called guarding against past wrongs. If so, since the precepts necessarily guard against wrongs, why do wrongs arise?' Answer: 'It requires the practitioner to uphold and resist with skillful means in subsequent [practice] before it is called guarding against wrongs. It is like the analogy of city moats, bows, and swords prepared to defend against and strike robbers. The remainder is explained as in the *Subcommentary on the Prātimokṣa*.'