四分律行事鈔資持記 2.164

2.164

答中，初二句，約受隨判開。此對隨行者，行有持犯，故說肥羸；不論受體者，受依本定，故無肥羸。亦下，次就受體作無作分，上二句明作戒。一念者，明時促也；隨心者，謂逐境遷謝，不可追改；上中下心，隨發一品，則永定也。若爾，彼宗作戒是色法，那云隨心？答：此約心念剋定成時，故《雜心》、《多論》，竝以初念二念，用分初後；如下自明。下二句，明無作。非心者，反上隨心也。盡形者，反上一念也；彼計無作為色，故但云非心耳。隨行增微者，謂持心勤怠，故體有肥羸；即彼所計，身口七業，皆色損益義也。若爾，與上隨行，復有何別？答：上則專論隨行，此謂以隨資受。（古記，以後解謂同《成論》許重受者，非也。彼自約行，說體肥羸，豈令重受耶。）

In the answer: the first two lines distinguish and divide in terms of reception and subsequent [practice]. This corresponds to subsequent practice: because practice has maintenance and violation, it is described as fat or weak; not discussing the reception-essence: because reception is determined based on the original, it has no fatness or weakness. From "also" downward, next it divides into manifest and unmanifest with respect to the reception-essence. The first two lines clarify the manifest precept. "One thought" clarifies the brevity of the time; "following the mind" means that as it shifts and perishes following the objective realm, it cannot be subsequently altered; whichever grade among the superior, middling, and inferior minds is generated, it is permanently fixed. If so, since that school regards the manifest precept as physical form, why does it say "following the mind"? Answer: This is in terms of the mental thought definitively establishing the time of completion; hence both the Samyuktābhidharma-hṛdaya and the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya Vibhāṣā use the first thought and second thought to distinguish beginning and end, as will be clarified below. The next two lines clarify the unmanifest. "Non-mind" is the opposite of the above "following the mind." "For the duration of life" is the opposite of the above "one thought"; that school posits the unmanifest as physical form, hence it merely says "non-mind." "Increasing or diminishing following practice" means that because the maintaining mind is diligent or indolent, the essence has fatness or weakness; this is precisely their doctrine that the seven bodily and vocal karmas are all the damage or benefit of physical form. If so, what difference is there with the subsequent practice above? Answer: Above, it exclusively discussed subsequent practice; here, it refers to using the subsequent to nourish the reception. (Ancient records consider the latter explanation to be identical to the Satyasiddhi-śāstra in permitting re-reception; this is incorrect. It merely speaks of the fatness or weakness of the essence in terms of practice; how could it cause re-reception?)