四分律行事鈔資持記 2.202

2.202

引證中，木論兩段，初段中。彼先問云：有人云：作業現可見，若布施禮拜殺害等，是應有（句）；無作業不可見，故應無？（此約作，難無無作。）答：若無無作，則無離殺等法。（既能離殺，驗有無作。）問：離名無作，不作則無法；如人不語時，無不語法生；不見色時，亦無不見色。（此約對境，難餘時無，引喻可解。）答：因離殺等，得生天上；若無法者，云何為因。（此約感報，顯餘時有。）問：不以離故生天，以善心故？（此推善心為因，難功非無作。）答曰：不然，方接鈔中如經等語。經中，即論家自引。精進即作業，壽長即現報。隨壽福多，謂無作增長；福，即善無作也。福多受天樂者，此證生天本由無作，非善心故。若下，反質來難，明非善心。不由善心，即知無作任運自爾，則非心明矣。不能常有者，凡人之心，未必一向專善故。後段中，初句立義。律儀即受體。若下，釋成。不善，即相違；無記不成業。準論，無記心下，有無心字。此言受體若是心者，但應善心成持，不應餘心亦名持也；即三性任運之義。故下，準決。爾時，指上不善無記心時。無有作者，以作必善心；今在餘心，何容起作。既無有作，得名持戒；乃是本受無作，不假緣搆，任運恒有；顯知無作非心明矣。（舊云寫倒，論作有無作也，《業疏》作無有作解，驗知論中寫誤。）

In citing evidence, there are two passages from the foundational treatise (*Tattvasiddhi-śāstra). In the first passage: it first asks, "Someone says: Manifest action is currently visible, such as giving, bowing, killing, and so forth, so it should exist; non-manifest action is invisible, so should it not exist?" (This uses the manifest to object that the non-manifest does not exist.) Answer: "If there were no non-manifest, then there would be no such dharma as abstaining from killing, etc." (Since one is able to abstain from killing, this proves the non-manifest exists.) Question: "Abstaining is named non-manifest; where there is no action, there is no dharma. Just as when a person does not speak, no dharma of non-speech arises; and when not seeing forms, there is also no non-seeing of form." (This uses confrontation with objects to object that it does not exist at other times; citing the analogy makes it understandable.) Answer: "Because of abstaining from killing, etc., one attains birth in heaven; if there were no dharma, how could it serve as the cause?" (This uses the incurring of retribution to reveal that it exists at other times.) Question: "Is one not born in heaven because of abstention, but because of a wholesome mind?" (This ascribes the cause to the wholesome mind, objecting that the efficacy does not belong to the non-manifest.) The answer says: "Not so," and only then does it connect to the words "as the sūtra states" in the Manual. The sūtra is what the treatise master cites himself. "Vigor" is manifest action; "long life" is the present retribution. "Merit multiplying with life" means that the non-manifest increases; "merit" is the wholesome non-manifest. "Much merit incurring heavenly bliss" proves that birth in heaven originally stems from the non-manifest, not from a wholesome mind. From "If" downward, it interrogates the incoming objection in reverse, clarifying that it is not the wholesome mind. If it does not stem from a wholesome mind, one knows that the non-manifest operates spontaneously on its own, so it is clear that it is not mind. "Cannot be constant": because an ordinary person's mind is not necessarily exclusively wholesome. In the latter passage, the initial line establishes the proposition. "Restraint" is the reception-essence. From "If" downward, it explains and establishes it. "Unwholesome" is contradictory; "indeterminate" does not constitute karma. Following the treatise, after the words "indeterminate mind" there is the character "mindless" (無心). This means that if the reception-essence were mind, it should only constitute maintenance with a wholesome mind, and other minds should not also be called maintenance; this is the meaning of operating spontaneously across the three natures. From "Therefore" downward, it settles the matter. "At that time" points to the aforementioned time of unwholesome and indeterminate mind. "There is no manifest" is because manifest must be a wholesome mind; now when resting in other minds, how could manifest arise? Since there is no manifest, yet it is called maintaining the precepts, it is simply that the originally received non-manifest does not rely on conditions to be constructed, but persists spontaneously; it is clear to know that non-manifest is not mind. (Formerly it was said that the characters were inverted, and the treatise had "there is non-manifest"; but the Karma Commentary interprets it as "there is no manifest," proving that the treatise contained a scribal error.)