四分律行事鈔資持記 2.198

2.198

次解無作，示體中。非色非心者，此即《成論》第三聚名，亦號不相應聚；此聚有十七法，無作，即其一也。良由無作體是非二，故入此收；即以聚名，用目其體。然自昔至今，談體多別；據如《業疏》，總列二執：一者法執，有講《四分》，乃依《雜心》出非色心禮；有學《十誦》，反準《成論》，立色為體；出體順計，據教乖宗，故名法執。二謂迷執，有弘假宗，立色為體；或傳有部，執非色心；光師以理為體，願師以受戒五緣為體；此即祖師已前，尚有諸異。洎撰《業疏》，廣列義章；分宗定體，文理坦然；但由學者不善討論，異端叢起，今略引之。《增輝》記主，定非色非心是種子義，即立種子為體。有人云：非色非心，是第三聚名；由此一類，無作不與心色相應；驅入第三聚中，故名非色心耳。有人云：非色非心，即是細色，同彼有宗；以南山解云：非色者，非塵大所成等；豈非簡麁色麁心，唯取細色耶？有人釋非色心，引《業疏》云：考其業體，本由心生，是則南山探入大乘也。有人云：非色非心者，思種為體；如是云云，無一可取，如別所破；祖師所謂宗骨顛倒，理味差僻；摘揣過濫，何可勝言。世有人云：非心非心，畢竟其體是何法耶？今為通曰，其體畢竟即是非色非心，何以故？名以定體故。又云：二非乃是簡除之言，名下無體，應反問曰：律中非法非人，竝是對簡，為有體不？此皆不曉教有權實，名不浪施，故多妄述。

Next, explaining non-action, under "Showing the Essence": "Neither form nor mind" is the name of the third aggregate in the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra, also called the aggregate of non-associated [formations]; this aggregate has seventeen dharmas, and non-action is one of them. Truly because the essence of non-action is neither of the two, it enters this classification; thus the aggregate's name is used to designate its essence. However, from ancient times to the present, discussions on the essence have varied widely; according to the Karma Commentary, it broadly lists two attachments: The first is attachment to dharmas: some who lectured on the Four-Part Vinaya based themselves on the Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya to set forth the essence of neither form nor mind; some who studied the Daśādhyāya-vinaya conversely adhered to the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra to posit matter as the essence. Bringing out an essence that conforms to the tenets [of another school] while based on a teaching that contradicts their own school is therefore called attachment to dharmas. The second is called confused attachment: some who propagated the Nominal School posited matter as the essence; or those who transmitted the Sarvāstivāda clung to neither form nor mind; Master Guang took principle as the essence, and Master Yuan took the five conditions for receiving the precepts as the essence; these were various differences that existed prior to the Patriarchal Master. When the Karma Commentary was composed, it broadly listed doctrinal chapters; distinguishing the schools and fixing the essences, the text and principle became fully evident; but because students did not discuss it properly, divergent views sprang up in profusion, which are now briefly cited. The master of the Zenghui commentary determined that "neither form nor mind" meant seeds, and thus posited seeds as the essence. Someone said: "Neither form nor mind is the name of the third aggregate; because this category of non-action does not associate with mind or matter, it is driven into the third aggregate, hence it is called neither form nor mind." Someone said: "Neither form nor mind is subtle matter, identical with that Existence School; because Nanshan explained: 'Not matter means not composed of sensory objects or the great elements, etc.'; does this not exclude coarse matter and coarse mind, taking only subtle matter?" Someone, interpreting neither form nor mind, quoted the Karma Commentary saying: "Examining its karmic essence, it is fundamentally produced from the mind; thus Nanshan explored and entered the Mahāyāna." Someone said: "As for neither form nor mind, the seed of volition is its essence." Such claims have not a single point worthy of adoption, as refuted elsewhere; what the Patriarchal Master called 'the bones of the school inverted, the flavor of the principle distorted'; arbitrary conjectures and excessive errors, how could they all be told! People in the world say: "Ultimately, what dharma is the essence of neither form nor mind?" Now we resolve it for them, saying: its essence ultimately is precisely neither form nor mind. Why? Because the name determines the essence. Again they say: "The two negations are words of exclusion; beneath the name there is no essence." One should ask in return: "In the Vinaya, 'not Dharma' and 'not a human' are both comparative exclusions; do they have an essence or not?" These are all failures to understand that the teaching has the provisional and the real, and that names are not applied in vain, hence there are many erroneous expositions.