四分律行事鈔資持記 2.1508

2.1508

後明兩犯，竝翻二持；以無別體狀，但望順違，兩分持犯。前作犯云，但不依戒，後止犯云，所對法事，即略指其體；至於制、聽、止、作，可、不可學，竝同前耳。昔人有立制聽二教為體。今謂二教，乃是攝法總科；所攝事法，乃是其體，故知非也。又有章門，以四行無作為體，謂與受體不別。今謂受隨前後，發業不同；云何持犯，與受不別；況兩犯無作體是不善，豈同受體，是亦不然。又有人立萬境為體。今謂境乃持犯之緣，非是其體；又諸戒列緣，境專一種；若唯立境，不攝諸緣，則成局故；又婬、觸、麁、媒，說法同宿，行坐、乘船，止一女境；若唯立境，則迷諸相；又如一女六十三戒，若唯立境，不顯多戒。若爾，《母論》云：犯必託境，豈非誠據？答：論云託境，豈非犯緣！至論所犯，須云犯戒，豈得犯境。問：如上三家，為有何失？答：前已略示，更為明之；舉要為言，都違祖訓。且文中自云：制聽二教以明，顯是約教明體，那云二教即是體耶。又體狀一門，未見一言談及無作，及與萬境，那得於外各自強立。又諸章記，竝科前段明二教文，以為立體；今分已下，正明體處自論四行；止用此求，有何關涉；自餘謬妄，何足論之。問：今此所立，指何為體？答：一教大宗，豈容擅立；況在文昭顯，何假別求；一準鈔文，如前委釋；恐有未悟，更略提示。如文前出二教名義。（《戒疏》科云，先明二教之意。）後分二教，各顯事法；事法即體，豈復疑乎。問：事法是何等？欲識事法，且對〈釋相〉，即是戒本一切諸戒。若通今鈔，即是三卷三行一切制法。若通祖教，即是一宗大小部文所詮行相。若通所宗，即是本律始終止作之法。若通諸部，即五百十八五部二部大毘尼藏。若通佛制，則三千八萬，乃至無量。若通諸境，則三世十方，數等塵沙，量同法界。若望佛佛道同，三乘齊奉；前聖後賢，相承不絕，即是戒法。若望領納在懷，即為業體。略舉數端，粗識事法；宜須研究，方見資深。況是一宗之宏綱，萬行之根本；苟迷斯旨，餘復可言！縱欲攝修，直恐投心無所；雖云講習，終為枉費時功。聖意極詳，凡情罔測；棄文考體，何殊緣本述魚；強立異端，豈異為蛇添足。幸負反隅之識，勿封是昔之迷；搜括古今，決擇可否；則吾祖之道，何患於喪乎！

Next, the explanation of the two violations both overturn the two maintenances. Because they have no separate essence or characteristic, they are divided into maintenance and violation merely with respect to conformity and transgression. The earlier statement on action-violation says, "[One] simply does not rely on the precepts"; the subsequent statement on cessation-violation says, "the phenomena and transactions confronted"—this briefly points out their essence. As for prohibition, exception, cessation, action, and what is learnable and unlearnable, they are all the same as before. Earlier masters established the two teachings of prohibition and exception as the essence. We now say: the two teachings are merely the general categories that subsume the dharmas; the phenomena and transactions subsumed are their essence, and thus we know [the earlier view] is incorrect. Furthermore, another commentary chapter took the non-manifestation of the four practices as the essence, claiming it is not distinct from the reception-essence. We now say: reception and subsequent [practice] are before and after; their initiation of karma differs. How could maintenance and violation not be distinct from reception? Moreover, the non-manifestation essence of the two violations is unwholesome—how could it be identical to the reception-essence? This is likewise incorrect. Furthermore, someone established the myriad objects as the essence. We now say: objects are the conditions for maintenance and violation, not their essence. Moreover, in the enumeration of conditions across the various precepts, the object is only one single kind; if one establishes only the object, it does not subsume the various conditions, thereby becoming too narrow. Furthermore, in lust, touching, coarse words, matchmaking, preaching the Dharma, staying overnight together, walking, sitting, and boarding a boat, there is only the single object of a woman; if one establishes only the object, one is confused regarding the various marks. Furthermore, just as one woman entails sixty-three precepts, if one establishes only the object, the many precepts are not revealed. If so, why does the Mother Commentary state: "A violation must depend on an object"—is that not reliable evidence? Answer: When the commentary states that it depends on an object, is that not a condition for violation! Coming to the discussion of what is violated, one must say one violates a precept; how could one violate an object? Question: What faults do the three schools mentioned above have? Answer: They have already been briefly indicated above, but will be further clarified here; to speak of what is essential, all contradict the Patriarchal Master's instructions. Furthermore, the text itself states: "Explained by means of the two teachings of prohibition and exception"—this clearly clarifies the essence in reference to the teaching; how could one say the two teachings are themselves the essence? Moreover, in the section on essence and characteristics, not a single word is seen mentioning non-manifestation or the myriad objects; how can one arbitrarily establish them externally on one's own? Furthermore, the various commentaries and records all classify the earlier passage explaining the two teachings as the establishment of the essence; but from the words "Now dividing…" onward, it is in the very place of explaining the essence that the four practices are discussed on their own. In seeking [the essence] solely by using this, what relevance does it have? As for the other errors and delusions, how are they worth discussing? Question: What is pointed out as the essence in what is established here now? Answer: As for the grand tenets of a single teaching, how could arbitrary establishment be tolerated? Moreover, it is luminously evident in the text; why rely on external seeking? It strictly accords with the text of the Manual, fully explained as before. Fearing some have not yet understood, it is briefly indicated again: just as the text first brings forth the names and meanings of the two teachings (the outline in the Precept Commentary states: "First explain the intention of the two teachings"), and later divides the two teachings, with each revealing phenomena and transactions; phenomena and transactions are the essence—how could there still be doubt? Question: What kind of things are "phenomena and transactions"? If you wish to know phenomena and transactions: first, matching the "Explanation of Marks", they are all the precepts in the Prātimokṣa. If extended to the present Manual, they are all the prohibitory dharmas of the three fascicles and three practices. If extended to the teachings of the Patriarchs, they are the behavioral marks explained by the texts of the greater and lesser works of the single school. If extended to our school's basis, they are the cessation and action dharmas from beginning to end in our vinaya. If extended to the various vinayas, they are the great Vinaya Piṭaka of the five hundred, eighteen, five, and two divisions. If extended to the Buddha's prohibitions, they are the three thousand, eighty thousand, and even immeasurable [precepts]. If extended to all objects, they are across the three times and ten directions, equal in number to dust and sand, their extent identical to the dharmadhātu. If viewed in terms of the identical path of all Buddhas and the equal compliance of the three vehicles, handed down continuously from past sages to later worthies, they are the precept-dharma. If viewed in terms of receiving and holding it in one's bosom, it is the karmic essence. Having briefly raised these few points, phenomena and transactions may be roughly understood; one must investigate them carefully, and only then will their profound depth be seen. Moreover, this is the grand framework of a single school, the foundation of myriad practices; if one is confused about this purport, what else is there to speak of! Even if one wishes to undertake practice, it is directly feared that there is nowhere to fix one's mind; though one speaks of lecturing and studying, it will end in vain expenditure of time and effort. The Sage's intention is extremely meticulous, beyond the measure of ordinary sentiments; to discard the text in investigating the essence, how does it differ from climbing a tree to seek fish? To forcibly establish deviant viewpoints, how does it differ from drawing a snake and adding legs? Fortunately possessing the capacity to infer from what is presented, do not remain confined in past confusions; scour the ancient and modern, resolve what is acceptable and unacceptable, and then why worry that our Patriarch's way will perish!