四分律行事鈔資持記 2.1135

2.1135

制意中，初科。《智論》釋六成就中，時成就文。彼明天竺說時有二：一名迦羅（此云實時，謂年月日時四時部氣等，世俗背計為實故。），二名三摩耶（此云假時。謂隨事緣，長短不定，無有實故。）。佛隨世諦，說三摩耶不說迦羅，為除外道俗人邪見故（俗人著有，外道計常；若說實時，更增彼計。此亦大分為言，非俱不說。）。論中，先破彼計實時皆無有實。然毘尼制法，多依實時；則顯如來亦說實時，豈是無時；故以為問，如鈔所引。答中為二，初約義釋通；二佛下，遮其來難。初中三義，初從假釋。論中難破時已，乃云見陰界入生滅假名為時無別時。（謂時經及餘經等亦說實時，乃是隨世名字，故云假名，此與俗說假名言同義別。又準佛說則彼二皆是假名，隨彼而言，故云實耳。）文云我已說者，即指上文。世界法有故，不妨說時非時；非實故，不妨無時；立論已明，不審重問，故反責之云不應難。（有下闕時字，實下脫法字，論本有之。）亦是下，次隨世釋。世界實者，俗所計也。（論文實下有非第一實一句，又無有字。）眾人呵者，即指緣起。（律中女人呵迦留陀夷云：寧自破腹，不應夜食。）由彼計實而致譏訶，律附世相遮譏故制。亦欲下，三護法釋。謂受戒時分定上中下，互相敬事，令法不滅，故云使久存等。（初義約假從道以釋，後二約實從俗而釋。）遮來難中。以毘尼制教，隨順世諦，從權建立，不可橫以真理而難俗事；以化就蕩相，制是建立，故云不應求等。論具云：諸佛世尊結諸戒，是中不應求有何實（體之虛實），有何名字（名之有無。），何者相應，何者不相應（義之違順）；何者是法，如是相；何者是法，不如是相（相之是非），以是故是事不應難。（化教詮理，必須四義求之。）次難中。論文前云如來為除邪見，不言迦羅，說三摩耶。謂餘經中多說假時；如上引律，乃說實時；義有相違，故以為難。答中為二，初明毘尼說實意，上句正示。（不字誤，論文正作中字。）以下，顯意。謂毘尼不許白衣外道聞故，可說實時；以道眾自知非實，不生邪執故。（文中下聞字，論作而字。）說下，次明餘經說假意。通多分者，道俗俱可聞故。（古多錯解，妄改文字；學者難曉，不免繁文。）

In the intention behind the prohibition: The first section is the passage on the fulfillment of time from the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa's explanation of the six fulfillments. That text clarifies that in India there are two ways of speaking of time: first, called kāla (translated as "real time", meaning years, months, days, hours, the four seasons, divisions of climatic energy, and so forth, because worldly conventions mistakenly grasp them as real); second, called samaya (translated as "provisional time", meaning depending on affairs and conditions, long or short without fixation, having no real existence). The Buddha, in accord with conventional truth, spoke of samaya and did not speak of kāla, in order to eliminate the wrong views of non-Buddhists and worldly people (worldly people cling to existence, and non-Buddhists grasp at permanence; if he spoke of real time, it would further increase their clinging. This is also spoken in broad terms, not that he completely never spoke of it). In the treatise, it first refutes their clinging that real time is entirely without reality. However, the Vinaya's instituted rules mostly rely on real time; this shows that the Tathāgata also spoke of real time, so how could there be no time? Therefore it raises this question, as cited in the Transactions Manual. In the reply, there are two parts: first, explaining and resolving it according to principle; under "The Buddha...", second, precluding subsequent objections. In the first part there are three points: first, explaining from provisionality. In the treatise, after refuting time through objections, it then says that seeing the arising and ceasing of the aggregates, realms, and sense-bases is provisionally designated as time, and there is no separate time. (This means that the Time Sūtra and other sūtras also speak of real time merely in accordance with worldly designations, hence called provisional designations; this has the same phrasing but a different meaning from the worldly notion of provisional designation. Furthermore, according to the Buddha's teaching, both of them are provisional designations; speaking in accord with them, he simply called it "real".) When the text says "I have already explained", it points to the text above. Because worldly phenomena exist, there is no contradiction in speaking of proper time and improper time; because they are not real, there is no contradiction in there being no time. The thesis having been clearly established, without careful consideration one questions it again, hence it rebukes him in return, saying one ought not raise this objection. (Below "exist", the character "time" is missing; below "real", the character "phenomena" has fallen out; the original treatise text has them.) Under "Also...", next explains according to the world. "The worldly real" is what the world grasps. (In the treatise text, below "real" there is the sentence "not the primary reality", and it also lacks the character "have".) "The rebuke of the multitude" points to the origin of the rule. (In the Vinaya, the woman rebuked Udāyin, saying: "Better to tear open your own belly than to eat at night.") Because they grasped it as real, they gave rise to slander; the Vinaya accommodates worldly appearances to avert slander, and hence instituted it. Under "Also wishing...", third explains through protecting the Dharma. This means that when receiving the precepts, the time divisions determine senior, middling, and junior, who respect and serve one another, causing the Dharma not to perish; hence it says "to cause it to endure long", and so forth. (The first point explains according to the provisional by following the path; the latter two explain according to the real by following worldly convention.) In precluding subsequent objections: Because the Vinaya's instituted teachings accord with conventional truth and are established provisionally, one must not arbitrarily use ultimate truth to raise objections against conventional affairs. Because teaching-doctrines focus on dissolving marks, whereas prohibitions focus on establishment, it says "one ought not seek", and so forth. The treatise states in full: When the Buddhas, the World-Honoured Ones, institute the precepts, herein one ought not seek what reality there is (the emptiness or reality of the essence), what name there is (the existence or nonexistence of names), what is concordant and what is discordant (the compliance or defiance of the meaning), what is dharma of such a characteristic, and what is dharma not of such a characteristic (the rightness or wrongness of marks); therefore, this matter ought not be objected to. (The teaching doctrines interpret principle, which must be sought through these four meanings.) In the next objection: The earlier treatise text says that to eliminate wrong views, the Tathāgata did not speak of kāla but spoke of samaya. This means that other sūtras mostly speak of provisional time, whereas the Vinaya cited above speaks of real time; the meanings are contradictory, hence it raises this objection. In the reply there are two parts: first, clarifying the intent behind the Vinaya speaking of the real, where the upper clause explicitly shows it. (The character "not" is an error; the treatise text properly reads "within".) Under "Because...", it reveals the intention: meaning that because the Vinaya does not allow white-robed laity and non-Buddhists to hear it, it can speak of real time; because the monastic community itself knows it is not real, they will not give rise to wrong attachments. (In the text, the lower character "hear" is written as "and" in the treatise.) Under "Speaking...", next clarifies the intent behind other sūtras speaking of the provisional: "pervading the majority" means that both monastics and laity can hear them. (The ancients mostly misunderstood this, arbitrarily altering the text; difficult for students to understand, it inevitably led to convoluted prose.)