四分律行事鈔資持記 2.192

2.192

示宗中，初句通示異計；今下，別示本宗。二論，即指多成。言不同者，統括部計，不出四門；所謂空、有、雙非、兩亦；雙非入空，兩亦歸有；故此四計，還即二門。此土飜傳，雖有四律；《十誦》、《四分》，時所盛弘，故今但對多宗辨異。一者，四分曇無德部，名為空宗，亦號假名宗，即《成實》所宗也。二者，十誦薩婆多部，名為有宗，亦曰實法宗，今《婆沙》、《俱舍》、《多論》、《雜心》，並同彼計。略知如此，委辨異相，具如疏中。多見講解不辨教宗，名相交參，何由識體；寄言學者，最宜留意。然今鈔中，依宗明體，指略多宗；然恐後學至文壅滯，妄致穿鑿，故須略示。《業疏》，廣列六位分別；今但撮要，引而示之。初明二戒，竝是有為，非三無為；由假緣搆造，四相所為故。（此有為無為分別。三無為者，虛空、擇滅、非擇滅也；四相，即生住異滅。）二諸有為法，總為三聚；一色聚，二心聚，三非色心聚；二戒竝色，非餘二聚。（此有為中三聚分別。）三色有十一，總括為三：一可見有對色（即色塵也），二不可見有對色（五根四塵），三不可見無對色（即法塵少分，法塵有二：一心法，謂諸心數法；二非心法，過未色法，無作即此色所收。）今作戒者，身作，即初色；口作，即第二色中聲塵；身口無作，竝第三色。（此色聚中三色分別。）四色中又有二：一本報色，謂四大也；二方便色，謂運動造作也；作戒非本報，是方便；無作非二色。（此身口色中二色分別。）五作戒是善色聲，非惡無記；無作，戒體是善，可知。（此方便中三性分別。）六作業始終，皆得為戒，不同餘善；無作當體是戒，非此所論。（此就善中，唯約作戒始終分別。）已上六位，顯示彼宗，二戒俱色；作色，即是色聲兩塵；無作色者，法入中攝，名為假色。問：無作既非見對，那名色耶？答：此有多義：一從能造名色，疏云：戒體所起，依身口成；隨具辨業，通判為色，是也。二損益名色，又云：彼宗七業，皆是色中，有損益故。三礙故名色；又云：無作雖非見對，然為四大造，更相障礙；據所可分，故名為色。問：既相障礙，應同根塵；既是法入為意所對，即非無對？答：五根五塵，能所俱礙，皆是色故；能所俱對，互不通故。假色不雖爾與意對；意根通緣一切塵故，即非對義；又假色是色，意根非色，故非礙義。餘廣如疏。

In [the section] "Showing the Schools," the first sentence generally indicates divergent tenets; from "Now..." downward, it specifically shows this school's own tenets. "The two treatises" refers to the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya Vibhāṣā and the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra. Saying that they are "not the same": subsuming the tenets of all sects, they do not go beyond four gates, namely: emptiness, existence, both-negated, and both-affirmed. Both-negated enters into emptiness, and both-affirmed returns to existence; therefore these four tenets still reduce to two gates. Although four vinayas have been translated and transmitted in this land, the Daśādhyāya-vinaya and the Dharmaguptaka-vinaya were the ones widely propagated in their time; therefore, [the manual] now only distinguishes the differences against the Sarvāstivāda school. First, the Dharmaguptaka school of the Four-Part Vinaya is called the Emptiness School, and is also called the Nominal Designation School; this is what the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra adheres to. Second, the Sarvāstivāda school of the Daśādhyāya-vinaya is called the Existence School, and is also called the Substantial Dharma School; nowadays the Mahāvibhāṣā, Abhidharmakośa, Sarvāstivāda Vinaya Vibhāṣā, and Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya all agree with its tenets. To know this in brief is like this; detailed distinctions of the different characteristics are fully set forth in the Commentary. One often sees lectures that do not distinguish the doctrinal schools, causing names and marks to be mixed up; how could one thereby know the essence? Entrusting these words to students, it is best to pay close attention. However, in the present Manual, when elucidating the essence based on its school, it points briefly to the Sarvāstivāda school; yet fearing that later students, upon reaching the text, would become obstructed and make arbitrary conjectures, it must be briefly shown. The Karma Commentary broadly lists six positions of distinction; here we only grasp the essentials, citing and demonstrating them. First, it explains that the two precepts are both conditioned and are not the three unconditioned [dharmas], because they are constructed depending on causes and conditions and are governed by the four characteristics. (This is the distinction between conditioned and unconditioned. The three unconditioned are space, analytical cessation, and non-analytical cessation; the four characteristics are arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing.) Second, all conditioned phenomena are broadly grouped into three clusters: first, the matter aggregate; second, the mind aggregate; third, the aggregate of neither form nor mind. The two precepts are both matter, not the other two aggregates. (This is the distinction among the three clusters within the conditioned.) Third, matter has eleven kinds, broadly subsumed under three: 1. visible and impinging matter (i.e., visible-form dust); 2. invisible and impinging matter (the five faculties and four sensory objects); 3. invisible and non-impinging matter (i.e., a small portion of mental phenomena (dharmāyatana); mental phenomena have two types: first, mental dharmas, meaning the various mental associates; second, non-mental dharmas, past and future material dharmas; non-action is subsumed under this matter). Now, as for the action precept: bodily action is the first [kind of] matter; verbal action is the sound dust within the second matter; bodily and verbal non-action are both the third matter. (This is the distinction of the three kinds of matter within the matter aggregate.) Fourth, within matter there are again two kinds: first, original retribution matter, meaning the four great elements; second, preparatory matter, meaning movement and deliberate action. The action precept is not original retribution, it is preparatory; non-action is neither of the two kinds of matter. (This is the distinction of the two kinds of matter within bodily and verbal matter.) Fifth, the action precept is wholesome matter and sound, not unwholesome or indeterminate; as for non-action, that the precept-essence is wholesome is understood. (This is the distinction of the three natures within the preparatory.) Sixth, from the beginning to the end of action, all can be the precept, unlike other wholesome [actions]; non-action is inherently the precept, which is not what is discussed here. (This is the distinction only in terms of the beginning and end of the action precept within wholesome [dharmas].) The above six positions demonstrate that in that school, both precepts are matter; action matter consists of the two sensory objects of visible form and sound; non-action matter is subsumed under the mental base (dharmāyatana) and is called nominal matter. Question: Since non-action is neither visible nor impinging, why is it called matter? Answer: This has several meanings: First, it is called matter after that which can produce it. The Commentary says: "What arises as the precept-essence is formed depending on body and speech; distinguishing the karma according to the instruments, it is broadly judged to be matter." This is it. Second, it is called matter from loss and benefit. It also says: "In that school, the seven paths of action are all within matter, because there is loss and benefit." Third, it is called matter because of obstruction. It also says: "Although non-action is neither visible nor impinging, yet being created by the four great elements, they mutually obstruct; based on what can be divided, it is therefore called matter." Question: If they mutually obstruct, it should be the same as faculties and sensory objects; since it belongs to the mental base and is an object of the mind faculty, then it is not non-impinging? Answer: With the five faculties and five sensory objects, both subject and object obstruct, because both are matter; both subject and object impinge, because they mutually do not penetrate. Nominal matter is not like this with respect to the mind; because the mind faculty broadly conditions all sensory objects, it is not an impinging meaning; furthermore, nominal matter is matter, while the mind faculty is not matter, hence it is not an obstructing meaning. The rest is extensively explained in the Commentary.